Should You Work With Companies With Opposing Values—On Your Intersections?
On one of the green discussion groups, someone raised the question whether it’s appropriate to work with a company whose mission is at odds with your values—on the parts where your values intersect. So, for example, would a pacifist environmentalist work with a military contractor on a sustainability project?
The discussion came out of this New York Times article about the conflict between green purists and green pragmatists about working with military contractor Lockheed Martin.
I have a very definite opinion on this, and will post it over the weekend—but I’d like to see what others think. Will you please post a comment, below?
A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com
As promised, I’ve now posted my thoughts on this. I felt they should have their own post: https://greenandprofitable.com/should-you-work-with-a-company-that-doesnt-share-your-values-my-take/
Hi Shel! Great question. I agree with Fergus and Sarah who stated that his answer is “It depends” even though that is an unsatisfying answer. It is none-the-less true. And, for me at least, it depends on the degree to which my values conflict with the company’s. As your Facebook follower said, tobacco and alcohol companies would be out for me. As would adult-movie organizations and several others that seriously opposite to my values. However, for the rest (green issues, ethics, etc.) I think I would have go through a pro/con checklist on a case-by-case basis.
Hi, Karon, glad to know you read my blog. Been a while since we’ve talked.
When someone approaches me about becoming a client, I send this as part of the material in my response:
“Please note that I reserve the right to reject a project if I feel I’m not the right person for it. This would include projects that in my opinion promote racism, homophobia, bigotry or violence–or that promote the tobacco, nuclear power, or weapons industries–or if I do not feel the product is of high enough quality that I can get enthusiastic about it.”
Of course, the question is what happens when it’s not the specific project, but the company. Tomorrow, I’ll post the response I wrote yesterday and clear up the mystery about where I stand.
Comment received on Facebook: Tania-René Valdespino When I was unemployed, I would not even LOOK at companies that went against my values (ie tobacco or alcohol).Tania-René Valdespino When I was unemployed, I would not even LOOK at companies that went against my values (ie tobacco or alcohol).
I can see why there’s controversy on this- there are definitely strong points to be made on both sides. On the one hand working with a company can be seen as an endorsement- on the other hand, refusing to work with anyone who doesn’t share 100% of your values 100% of the time is a recipe for cutting yourself off from everyone, retreating to your own little bubble- and getting nothing accomplished.
On the whole I tend to come down on the side of Will Allen, one of my sustainability heroes (Google Growing Power if you don’t know about him), who says that it’s foolish and short-sighted not to work with big corporations- that they ARE changing and we need to be involved with them in order to make sure the changes continue in a positive direction. That doesn’t mean working with anyone on anything, of course- he works with Walmart by turning their waste into organic compost, for instance- and he won’t work with Monsanto. But in the case of Walmart, I have to ask what would be the purpose of refusing to work with them and possibly leaving them to dump their waste in landfills? On the other hand, just taking money from them and letting them use your name to trumpet their greenness would obviously NOT be a good way to work with them.
So as usual, I suppose the answer to this boils down to ‘it depends’. There shouldn’t be any blanket ‘no working with anyone who doesn’t share ALL values’ policy, but HOW, WHO and WHEN to work with any other group are all important questions to get answered before leaping in.
Great thoughts, Sarah! I enjoyed your contribution.
I think you’re right that it boils down to “it depends” — to specifics about yourself, your business, your stakeholders — your whole context and the partner’s. I think we all rather hate giving that answer because it’s unsatisfying. It’s an accurate and appropriate non-answer in a way. 🙂
So at the least, can we provide some guidance, rule of thumb, or starting point for those struggling with the decision? I think so. Certainly, my “gag” test written about in my comments exchange with @shelhorowitz:disqus — do they embarrass me or would they be embarrassing to the brand — is I think a minimum threshold they have to pass.
Walmart is a great example. As folks interested in marketing, the environment, and likely progressive values in general, we’re likely to be aware of and have misgivings with that corporation. I certainly regard them with a sort of disgusted respect because they’re brilliant at doing what they do, but of course they have created a strong impression of doing it all from a typically amoral corporate philosophy — wealth is good, lack of wealth is bad, nothing else is significant.
I agree that I want them to embark on environmental mitigation programmes such as you mention irrespective of whether they do it out of sincere concern for their environmental impact or for financial gain though improving brand image or for both (and both honestly doesn’t diminish sincerity in my mind). Sincerity is exceptionally hard to judge in these cases, but if there’s the chance that it’s sincere than it feels hypocritical NOT to help! I’m going to refuse due to marketing and values concerns yet hope someone else holds to a different standard so I will share in the benefit of a cleaner planet?
And then I feel back at the beginning. 🙂 Maybe the best answer has to do with how we can communicate about our involvement in these projects have the potential to confuse our own past and potential customers. Could Walmart accept some sort of statement from its partner that includes both the positives of the project, but also admits to concerns about the company’s actions in other areas — things that the partner cannot endorse? Seems like it’d be a sticky point!
Obviously, Shel is going to come and make it all right again by showering wisdom on me. Please? 😀
Fergus, I love that phrase “disgusted respect.” I frequently cite Walmart in my talks and interviews as an example that is doing the right thing on the environment (I still have plenty of other disagreements with them) not out of any treehugger sensibilities, but because it is both saving and making boatloads of money.
Are you by chance @sustainablylush on Twitter?
As for whatever “wisdom” I have to “shower,” I’m going to let this discussion run one more day first.
Well-stated, Sarah!
I think it is important to be pragmatic, and realize companies can’t change on a dime. I don’t know every detail about the burlington-lockheed situation so I will withhold comment on that in particular.
However, giant corporations play a big role in our economy. They will not turn on a dime from polluters to sustainable businesses. Every deal is different, but they should not be automatically shut out because of the way they acted in the past, or are even acting now, if they are attempting a good path of transition.
Clorox is a big polluter, but they are making strides with GreenWorks. GE does all kinds of bad things, but they are a real leader in green technologies. Walmart and Proctor and Gamble are doing more for sustainability than any US Gov’t effort thus far by getting serious about their Sustainability Scorecard.
We have to give the big players a path to a better future, otherwise they will dig in their heels even more to the past.
Again, every deal is different, but we have to give them a good path to get on the right track.
It would be interesting to get you in a room with Accretor (see below) :-). You two address this from opposite sides.
Received these comments on Twitter:From @mannycatabas Emmanuel Catabas @ @shelhorowitz Can’t work w/ a co w/ opposing values as mine. 1st I will not be happy performing my duties affecting my efficiency.From @sustainablylush Sustainably Lush @ @shelhorowitz quite an interesting question, Shel. It’ll be interesting to see precisely where this goes.
Great question. I’d rather work with others who really share my values and my company’s values because accepting a partner on a project implies a sort of approval. Many people are going to find it hypocritical, and trying to make the case that it might not be is a real challenge. Further, the other organization may in fact be using the project to address its perceived shortcomings and borrowing credibility from your joint project. When you work with partners who demonstrate a close alignment with your own values, you’re contributing to an organization you truly can embrace while bolstering rather than undermining your own credibility.
Yes, you raise many good points–but of course there is another side to it. Can you be a force for moving a disagreeable company toward your values? And is it worth it to do so if you are called a hypocrite and/or exploited by a company looking to look better than it is?
This is a very good point, Shel. It’s an aspect of my approach to business as well, though I won’t pair with an organization that I detest and that will tarnish me by association. That said, I certainly don’t feel an organization that isn’t actively undermining the key values — there are some who just don’t get it, I would suppose largely due to the anti-green media campaign — needs to pass an “are they green enough” test. Creating a barrier like that will indeed limit your influence to the “choir.”
I like to use the example of the Alberta oil sands when speaking locally because most in my locality are at least superficially aware of the issue and that what’s being done has substantial environmental cost — even if they’re not clear. I could never partner with one of those companies, but I would partner with and try to be a good influence upon neutral partners. I have already developed a specific product and strategy around this, and have plans for another.I draw the line at whether I’m going to be embarrassed or feel the brand should be embarrassed to admit the association. If it’s debatable, I’ll often accept it if the outcomes are strongly positive — but I am also ready to explain the action if it’s challenged privately or publicly. We’re really at a size where few observe or care much about our actions, but I still think big than I am. We can at least be ready and effective in addressing any dissonance with those who do care.And I suppose that the’s real question: where is the line best drawn to achieve one’s goals. If you are too discriminating, you lose your great opportunities to have an impact on your organization partners. If you aren’t discriminating enough, you’re sending a powerful message of insincerity around the values you speak to. I firmly believe that speech is important but will always fail next to observed actions.