A fresh round of bullets will be fired at a laundry list of big companies that were outed as contributors to the Yes campaign for the Voice to parliament. It will be the latest salvo in what has been a backlash against major companies bankrolling what are generally progressive causes.
Whereas companies that pushed other social objectives, such as same-sex marriage, managed to gain some halo effect, given the public seemed more broadly in favour, statistically speaking, the companies bankrolling the Yes campaign were not in lockstep with the majority of Australians.
Many big corporations said Yes. The public said No. Above: Yes campaign director Dean Parkin.Credit: Sydney Morning Herald
Many of Australia’s biggest companies, including BHP, Rio, Telstra, the big four banks, Wesfarmers and Woolworths, contributed millions of dollars to the Yes campaign.
As a public relations exercise, the outcome is debatable. But these companies stood alongside many philanthropic organisations and individuals whose motives are clearer and cleaner – a desire to better the lives of Indigenous Australians.
Even more noteworthy was the absence of large listed contributors to the No campaign, which was mostly funded by individuals and their private companies. Clive Palmer was one of the largest in this category, while another was the lesser-known Simon Fenwick. Fenwick had previously given $1 million to the conservative lobby group Advance, which had concerns about COVID-19 restrictions, growing Chinese interference in Australia, and corporate hypocrisy on social values.
But for companies, especially large companies, there remains some cynicism about funding progressive social causes – especially those that are controversial. Support can be seen as just part of brand fixing or marketing.
Rio Tinto and PwC could arguably be seen as falling into this category – the former, which tarred its reputation after blowing up artefact-rich Indigenous caves, and the latter for using confidential government information to win multinational clients.
In days gone by, large listed companies made significant donations to political parties that they justified as their desire to fund democracy.
The public held concerns that political donations were more transactional – particularly when contributions came from organisations that relied on governments for licences (such as gaming companies or property developers who relied on the government’s planning laws).
But for companies, especially large companies, there remains some cynicism about funding progressive social causes … Support can be seen as just part of brand fixing or marketing.
They were viewed as the buy-in price for access to lawmakers.
But taking an active role in issues outside the corporate wheelhouse is a trend that is growing, despite the noisy detractors demanding that companies stay in their lane.
Many companies withstood serious blowback during COVID-19 for taking a stand and refusing to allow unvaccinated staff and visitors to enter their workplaces. However, companies argued that the decision was legitimate on staff health and safety grounds.
But why shouldn’t taking a stand (either way) on the Voice be seen as part of a company’s environmental and social governance responsibility?
Noteworthy was the absence of large listed contributors to the No campaign.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer
Investors have been arguing for more than a decade that a company’s social responsibility includes reducing carbon emissions. The community expects companies to have a responsibility to more than just their shareholders. For example, they have to promote diversity and inclusion, and banks have a responsibility to look after hardship cases among their customers.
Having a positive culture is the new black.
If the companies extend this notion of improving culture to the broader community, they can find themselves as collateral damage in the febrile social culture wars – or be seen as warriors for the woke.
However, if their motives are clean (and I am not suggesting all are), then straying into supporting positive social issues will probably place them on the right side of history.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
Big donating companies risk being seen as warriors for the woke
6
0
02.04.2024
A fresh round of bullets will be fired at a laundry list of big companies that were outed as contributors to the Yes campaign for the Voice to parliament. It will be the latest salvo in what has been a backlash against major companies bankrolling what are generally progressive causes.
Whereas companies that pushed other social objectives, such as same-sex marriage, managed to gain some halo effect, given the public seemed more broadly in favour, statistically speaking, the companies bankrolling the Yes campaign were not in lockstep with the majority of Australians.
Many big corporations said Yes. The public said No. Above: Yes campaign director Dean Parkin.Credit: Sydney Morning Herald
Many of Australia’s biggest companies, including BHP, Rio, Telstra, the big four banks, Wesfarmers and Woolworths, contributed millions of dollars to the Yes campaign.
As a public relations exercise, the outcome is debatable. But these companies stood alongside many philanthropic organisations and individuals whose motives are clearer and cleaner – a desire to better the lives of Indigenous........
© The Age
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Rami G Khouri
