‘Go woke, go broke' is no longer true. Socially aware capitalism is the future of corporate responsibility
The phrase 'go woke, go broke' is often used by critics of corporate social responsibility. It implies that companies face a binary choice: embrace progressive values or pursue profit.
But this dichotomy between 'wokeness' and capitalism is both simplistic and increasingly out of step with corporate reality.
Many companies are learning to navigate a middle path. They are embedding social, environmental and ethical considerations into their business strategies – not in spite of profit, but because it contributes to long-term value creation.
Understanding this shift – and the backlash to it – is fundamental to grasping modern corporate responsibility.
Our research examines the growing tension between evolving 'woke' agendas within firms and the enduring demands of shareholder value, known as 'shareholder revanchism'.
We explore this dynamic using academic Archie Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility, where economic responsibility forms the foundation for higher legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations.
Ultimately, we argue for a reassessment of the prevailing emphasis on shareholder profit and short-termism. Directors should adopt a more balanced approach when pursuing profit and discharging their duties.
The illusion of choice
The idea that directors must choose between shareholders and stakeholders – between profit and progressive causes – has deep roots in law and economics.
For decades, shareholder primacy prevailed in global business. This principle was famously reinforced in court decisions such as the 1919 Dodge v Ford case in the United States. Henry Ford was found to have a duty to operate his company in the interests of shareholders. It was later popularised by Milton Friedman, who declared that 'the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits'.
A stark example of this tension came with the ousting of Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of food giant Danone in 2021. Faber was accused by some shareholders of failing to 'strike the right balance between shareholder value creation and sustainability'. His critics felt he focused too much on people, the planet and social responsibility and not enough on profits.
Yet corporate law has begun to evolve. In the United Kingdom, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 still requires directors to promote the success of the company 'for the benefit of its members'. But the legislation also requires directors to consider employees, suppliers, communities and environmental outcomes.
This model – sometimes termed 'enlightened shareholder value' – preserves profit as the goal, while recognizing that broader factors shape how it is achieved.
New Zealand's brief experiment with section 131 of the Companies Act 1993, which allowed directors to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, is another example. The amendment was introduced under Labour before being revoked by the National-led coalition.
Canada has a similar provision.
The challenge of defining 'woke capitalism'
The phrase 'woke capitalism' was popularised in a 2018 New York Times opinion piece about corporate activism.
It originally described how firms were supporting progressive causes to attract younger, values-driven consumers – not out of altruism, but to strengthen brand appeal.
In 2019, the US Business Roundtable – a group of 200 top chief executives – rejected shareholder primacy in favor of stakeholder governance. It pledged to run companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.
This followed a 2018 letter by Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock, calling on firms to pursue a broader purpose and serve all their stakeholders.
Yet corporate activism carries risks.
Nike's campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick boosted sales but sparked backlash over the American football player's support for Black Lives Matter. Bud Light's brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney triggered boycotts. Gillette's 'toxic masculinity' campaign alienated many long-time customers.
Jaguar's sales plunged after a rebrand was criticised as pandering. Even ice cream company Ben & Jerry's has clashed with parent company Unilever over the limits of its political expression.
These examples show that progressive branding is not always rewarded – but nor is silence. Companies now risk criticism for failing to speak out on issues their stakeholders care about. It is clear consumers are increasingly attuned to corporate social responsibility.
Creating value for everyone
A central challenge in reconciling these tensions is the definition of profit itself. Traditional corporate law treats profit as the ultimate end of business activity.
But scholars such as Edward Freeman argue that profit is a precondition for continuity – not an end in itself. As he puts it, profit to a company is like red blood cells to a human: essential for survival, but not the purpose of life.
Under this view, profit becomes cyclical. It is a means of sustaining activity, not a fixed destination. This may seem open ended, but it avoids the fiction that companies ever reach a final 'profit goal'.
Firms pursuing social impact are not abandoning capitalism; they are redefining it.
In a polarized climate, 'woke capitalism' remains a lightning rod. But the supposed conflict between ethics and economics is a false one. Courts, lawmakers and firms alike are recognizing that social responsibility can support, rather than undermine, long-term value.
Directors are no longer torn between duty and decency. They are navigating a broader understanding of corporate success – one in which 'wokeness' and capitalism are not opposing forces, but interdependent elements of a sustainable business strategy.
This article is based on research completed with Dr Philip Gavin from the University College of London.
Peter Underwood is Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, New Zealand.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
External Link
https://theconversation.com/go-woke-go-broke-is-no-longer-true-socially-aware-capitalism-is-the-future-of-corporate-responsibility-261091
© The Conversation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
20 hours ago
- Japan Today
‘Go woke, go broke' is no longer true. Socially aware capitalism is the future of corporate responsibility
By Peter Underwood The phrase 'go woke, go broke' is often used by critics of corporate social responsibility. It implies that companies face a binary choice: embrace progressive values or pursue profit. But this dichotomy between 'wokeness' and capitalism is both simplistic and increasingly out of step with corporate reality. Many companies are learning to navigate a middle path. They are embedding social, environmental and ethical considerations into their business strategies – not in spite of profit, but because it contributes to long-term value creation. Understanding this shift – and the backlash to it – is fundamental to grasping modern corporate responsibility. Our research examines the growing tension between evolving 'woke' agendas within firms and the enduring demands of shareholder value, known as 'shareholder revanchism'. We explore this dynamic using academic Archie Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility, where economic responsibility forms the foundation for higher legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations. Ultimately, we argue for a reassessment of the prevailing emphasis on shareholder profit and short-termism. Directors should adopt a more balanced approach when pursuing profit and discharging their duties. The illusion of choice The idea that directors must choose between shareholders and stakeholders – between profit and progressive causes – has deep roots in law and economics. For decades, shareholder primacy prevailed in global business. This principle was famously reinforced in court decisions such as the 1919 Dodge v Ford case in the United States. Henry Ford was found to have a duty to operate his company in the interests of shareholders. It was later popularised by Milton Friedman, who declared that 'the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits'. A stark example of this tension came with the ousting of Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of food giant Danone in 2021. Faber was accused by some shareholders of failing to 'strike the right balance between shareholder value creation and sustainability'. His critics felt he focused too much on people, the planet and social responsibility and not enough on profits. Yet corporate law has begun to evolve. In the United Kingdom, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 still requires directors to promote the success of the company 'for the benefit of its members'. But the legislation also requires directors to consider employees, suppliers, communities and environmental outcomes. This model – sometimes termed 'enlightened shareholder value' – preserves profit as the goal, while recognizing that broader factors shape how it is achieved. New Zealand's brief experiment with section 131 of the Companies Act 1993, which allowed directors to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, is another example. The amendment was introduced under Labour before being revoked by the National-led coalition. Canada has a similar provision. The challenge of defining 'woke capitalism' The phrase 'woke capitalism' was popularised in a 2018 New York Times opinion piece about corporate activism. It originally described how firms were supporting progressive causes to attract younger, values-driven consumers – not out of altruism, but to strengthen brand appeal. In 2019, the US Business Roundtable – a group of 200 top chief executives – rejected shareholder primacy in favor of stakeholder governance. It pledged to run companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders. This followed a 2018 letter by Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock, calling on firms to pursue a broader purpose and serve all their stakeholders. Yet corporate activism carries risks. Nike's campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick boosted sales but sparked backlash over the American football player's support for Black Lives Matter. Bud Light's brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney triggered boycotts. Gillette's 'toxic masculinity' campaign alienated many long-time customers. Jaguar's sales plunged after a rebrand was criticised as pandering. Even ice cream company Ben & Jerry's has clashed with parent company Unilever over the limits of its political expression. These examples show that progressive branding is not always rewarded – but nor is silence. Companies now risk criticism for failing to speak out on issues their stakeholders care about. It is clear consumers are increasingly attuned to corporate social responsibility. Creating value for everyone A central challenge in reconciling these tensions is the definition of profit itself. Traditional corporate law treats profit as the ultimate end of business activity. But scholars such as Edward Freeman argue that profit is a precondition for continuity – not an end in itself. As he puts it, profit to a company is like red blood cells to a human: essential for survival, but not the purpose of life. Under this view, profit becomes cyclical. It is a means of sustaining activity, not a fixed destination. This may seem open ended, but it avoids the fiction that companies ever reach a final 'profit goal'. Firms pursuing social impact are not abandoning capitalism; they are redefining it. In a polarized climate, 'woke capitalism' remains a lightning rod. But the supposed conflict between ethics and economics is a false one. Courts, lawmakers and firms alike are recognizing that social responsibility can support, rather than undermine, long-term value. Directors are no longer torn between duty and decency. They are navigating a broader understanding of corporate success – one in which 'wokeness' and capitalism are not opposing forces, but interdependent elements of a sustainable business strategy. This article is based on research completed with Dr Philip Gavin from the University College of London. Peter Underwood is Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, New Zealand. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Wants More American Pick-Ups in Tokyo and London. That May Be a Hard Sell
TOKYO/STOCKHOLM, August 7 (Reuters) – Donald Trump is right that Japan and Europe buy few American-made cars – but it has little to do with trade barriers. From Tokyo to London, many consumers see Detroit's offerings as simply too big and too gas-guzzling. That view has made Chevrolets and Cadillacs a hard sell, and a rare sight, in cities full of slimmer cars from the Toyota Corolla to Honda Civic, Volkswagen Golf and Renault Clio. Trump often complains about what he sees as a refusal to accept U.S. cars while the Japanese and Europeans sell millions of automobiles a year into the United States. In recent trade deals, both markets agreed to drop or ease safety tests on American vehicle imports. Europe will lower levies on U.S. cars. But it may take more than a change of rules and lower tariffs to convince Japanese and European consumers, who contend with narrow roads and painfully tight parking, to buy big American-made Ford F-150 trucks and Cadillac Escalade SUVs. 'American cars are designed for wide roads and freeway driving, so handling them on narrow Japanese streets can be tricky. It takes a bit of technique,' said Yumihito Yasue, president of Johnan Jeep Petit in Tokyo, which imports and services vintage cars from the United States. His customers tend to be enthusiasts in their 50s and 60s who grew up seeing American cars on TV and in movies. On a recent weekday, he was servicing two Chevrolets, a lustrous brown 1971 Nova and a low-slung 1986 El Camino, both with their steering wheels on the left. In Japan, steering is on the right. Yasue inherited his love of American cars from his father, who started the business four decades ago and would travel to California to scout for cars. Yasue took over after his father died nine years ago, and sells about 20 vehicles a year. 'What makes American cars special is the design. Compared to Japanese or German cars, the body shape is more beautiful. Especially the lines, like the rear lines and the fenders,' he said. Some 3.7 million new cars were sold in Japan last year, with a third of those mini or 'kei' cars – tiny, fuel efficient vehicles not produced by American automakers. Overall, foreign cars accounted for 6% of new car sales, data from the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association showed. Of those, around 570 Chevys, 450 Cadillacs and 120 Dodges were sold, data from the Japan Automobile Importers Association showed. Ford F.N pulled out of Japan almost a decade ago. Tesla TSLA.O makes cars sleeker than some of Detroit's and is becoming more popular. The data does not give a breakdown for the EV maker. 'WE DON'T BUY FORD F-150S' In Europe, smaller locally-made U.S. cars have done well: models like the best-selling Ford Puma and the older Fiesta. But over the past two decades, Ford and General Motors GM.N have pivoted towards larger pickups and SUVs, vehicles less suited to Europe's narrow streets and compact-car culture. Ford, a big player in Europe from the early 1900s, has seen sales in the region fall sharply, from 1.26 million vehicles in 2005 to just 426,000 in 2024, according to data from the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA). Its market share dropped from 8.3% to 3.3%. 'We don't buy Ford F-150s, that's not what our roads are scaled for, it's not what our customers want,' Andy Palmer, former CEO of Aston Martin, told Reuters. GM exited Europe in 2017, selling Opel after pulling back Chevrolet, but returned with its Cadillac Lyriq last year. It sold a mere 1,514 of the U.S.-made SUV, according to auto data firm Jato. A GM spokesperson said Cadillac was growing its all-electric lineup in Europe, and the vehicles had been well-received in the markets where they were launched. A Ford spokesperson said the firm exported 'passion products' to Europe like the Bronco and Mustang, alongside locally-made models tailored for the market. Clive Sutton, a British car dealer in London who sells luxury American models, said his buyers were drawn to the rarity of vehicles like the giant Cadillac Escalade. But he admitted it was a challenge. 'There are people that want that car because of its exclusivity and its perceived status,' Sutton said. 'But it's not the most easy car to find a parking space for, certainly in central London.' COMPETITIVE MARKET Trump has also put pressure on South Korea to open its market to American cars and said duty-free access was part of the trade deal the two countries agreed last week. There, imported vehicles account for less than one-fifth of the car market and U.S. models for only 16% of the imported car segment, which is dominated by German rivals, according to data from the Korea Automobile Importers & Distributors Association. German manufacturers have also carved out a strong presence in Japan's luxury market. Mercedes-Benz sold more than 53,000 vehicles last year, making it the most popular foreign brand, followed by BMW at more than 35,000. Japanese automakers say Europeans have been successful because they committed the time and resources to the market. Detroit carmakers, meanwhile, are often associated with left-hand drive cars, which are more challenging to drive on the left-hand side of the road. But some U.S. manufacturers are changing. GM has offered the Corvette only in right-hand drive since the eighth generation version went on sale in 2021. That may be one reason why some 80% of buyers are new customers, a GM spokesperson said. The Corvette is the only model Chevy offers in Japan, and it has sold fewer than 1,000 of them a year for the last decade. GM this year announced plans for a line-up of right-hand-drive Cadillac EVs and deliveries of the Lyriq started in July. 'WOW, A FOREIGN CAR' Jeep, which sells right-hand drive models, has been the most popular American brand for more than a decade, the importer data showed. It sold just shy of 10,000 vehicles last year in Japan. Yukimi Nitta used to drive a 'kei' car but she was drawn to the Jeep Wrangler's appearance, which she described as 'friendly' and 'outdoorsy.' The 42-year-old hair salon owner is now on her second Jeep – a limited-edition beige model – and hopes to switch again to another limited-edition color. Parking is tight but manageable, she said, and two of her friends have since bought Wranglers. 'People often say, 'Wow, a foreign car!' But once you drive it, it feels totally normal. I wish more people would try it,' she said. While the Wrangler does burn through fuel quickly, the resale value is good, making it possible to switch out colors, something owners do, Nitta said. A spokesperson for Jeep owner Stellantis said it actively promoted owner events. In July, it announced a collaboration with the 'Jurassic World' movie series featuring a limited-edition pink Wrangler, the spokesperson said. Big American cars and trucks might find it hard to follow in Jeep's tracks. Daniel Cadwell, an American living in Tokyo, exports used Japanese camper vans and wagons to the United States. He said he was struck by the size of American cars whenever he went home. 'They are just excessively big,' said Cadwell, who runs Javan Imports in Portland with his U.S.-based business partner. 'I think it is highly challenging for a car of that sort to be seen as attractive in Japan.'
Japan Times
4 days ago
- Japan Times
ESPN, leaping to streaming, holds hands with the NFL
As competition for sports streaming rights escalates, with YouTube, Netflix and Amazon challenging traditional media companies for game packages, Disney has found an innovative way to strengthen its grip on football. The Walt Disney Company, which owns ESPN, and the National Football League on Tuesday night announced a complicated deal for the NFL to take a 10% equity stake in ESPN. In exchange, ESPN will acquire the league's traditional NFL Network and certain rights to the fan-favorite RedZone Channel, among other media assets. NFL Fantasy Football, for instance, will merge with ESPN Fantasy Football. "This is a gigantic leap forward for ESPN as it gets ready to launch its service,' Bob Iger, Disney's CEO, said in an interview, noting that the NFL Network would be "seamlessly integrated' with ESPN's flagship streaming service, which is expected to be introduced this month. "We think that it will go a long way toward improving ESPN's prospects when it migrates more and more into a direct-to-consumer product,' Iger said. ESPN's new streaming service, which will cost $30 a month, will include all ESPN programming, including live events — some 47,000 a year. For the first time, ESPN viewers will not need a cable or satellite subscription. ESPN was Disney's financial engine for nearly 30 years, powering the company through recessions, box-office wipeouts and the pandemic. In 2023, however, Iger and Jimmy Pitaro, ESPN's chair, started to explore a once-unthinkable sale of a stake in the division as a way to confront the turbulent economics of the streaming era. In 2013, roughly 100 million households received ESPN. Today, as a result of cord cutting, that number is closer to 61 million. ESPN has raised its affiliate fees to keep profitability high, but its ability to continue doing so will be limited in the coming years: By 2027, fewer than 50 million homes will pay for a cable hookup, according to PwC, the accounting giant. To begin the transition away from cable, Disney introduced a limited streaming service called ESPN+ in 2018. It shows thousands of games annually, but very few are the biggest NFL, college football, NBA or baseball games. As of March 29, ESPN+ had 24 million paid subscribers. Disney pays the NFL around $2.7 billion per year for "Monday Night Football,' which jointly airs on ESPN and ABC, the Disney-owned broadcast network. Disney's deal with the NFL, which includes the 2027 and 2031 Super Bowls, runs through 2033 but can be reopened in 2029. The NFL's ownership stake in ESPN would presumably give the channel a leg up in future negotiations with the league for media rights. YouTube, Amazon, NBC, CBS, Fox and Netflix also hold various NFL rights. The no-cash deal that was unveiled Tuesday, valued by analysts at $2 billion to $3 billion, is subject to regulatory approval, which could take nine months or more. If completed, Disney will own 70% of ESPN, with the Hearst Corporation maintaining its 20% stake, which it has held since 1990. Iger and Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, also announced a second deal Tuesday that will bring three additional NFL games per season to ESPN platforms, along with a wider array of NFL specialty content. "Our fans are the ones who are going to benefit from this,' Goodell said. "They'll get deeper, richer, more exciting content.' As for parting with the NFL Network, which was started in 2003, Goodell said he was glad to put it "in the hands of a partner who is excited about growing not just the distribution but also the quality.' The NFL Network is distributed to about 44 million homes, down from about 70 million a decade ago. The NFL will continue to own and operate the NFL+ streaming service, NFL Films and the NFL Podcast Network, among other media properties. It will also continue to own, operate and produce NFL RedZone, a live channel that shows every touchdown scored during Sunday afternoon games. "The selling of assets, particularly assets as valuable as ESPN, takes time and requires a lot of thought,' Iger said. "It's not 'snap your fingers, here's 10% of ESPN and we get the NFL Network.'' "As we analyzed it, it became more and more clear that a deal with the NFL would not only be accretive economically to Disney, but it would deliver the kind of strategic value that we were seeking,' Iger added. This article originally appeared in The New York Times © 2025 The New York Times Company
