In a recent interview at the Fast Company Innovation Festival, Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert addressed the reluctance of companies to engage with “anti-woke” politicians and the culture wars. Gellert believes that fear and lack of consistency are the main reasons why companies choose not to take a stand. He emphasized the importance of leadership and standing by one’s values, pointing out that companies often backtrack or remain silent when faced with controversy. Gellert highlighted Patagonia’s commitment to its values, including its long-standing pledge to donate 1% of its sales to environmental causes. He stressed that while Patagonia is a for-profit business, it uses its platform to inspire and challenge other businesses. This article explores Gellert’s insights and sheds light on the complex relationship between capitalism, activism, and political engagement in the corporate world.
Read more about the Latest Money News
Patagonia’s CEO discusses companies’ fear of fighting against ‘anti-woke’ politicians
In a recent discussion at the Fast Company Innovation Festival, Patagonia’s CEO, Ryan Gellert, addressed the fear that companies face when it comes to engaging in politics. Gellert emphasized the importance of knowing one’s values before taking a stand and highlighted several examples of brands that have struggled with effectively engaging in the political landscape.
Importance of knowing one’s values before taking a stand
According to Gellert, one of the reasons companies hesitate to engage in politics is because they lack a clear understanding of their own values. Without a solid foundation in their beliefs and principles, companies may find it difficult to effectively navigate the complexities of engaging in political conversations. Gellert emphasized the importance of companies knowing what they stand for before attempting to take a stand on any issue.
Examples of brands struggling with engaging in politics
Gellert pointed out that many brands have faced challenges when it comes to engaging in politics. He highlighted examples of companies that have clumsily waded into the culture wars with flavorless ad campaigns, mealy-mouthed press statements, or even a complete lack of response. Gellert specifically mentioned Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has made “anti-woke” identity politics a central focus of his presidential campaign. Despite the prominence of these issues in the political landscape, many companies have chosen to remain silent or avoid taking a clear stance.
Fear as a deterrent for companies
Gellert identified fear as one of the main reasons companies hesitate to engage in politics. He noted that people in senior roles often like to be seen as leaders and fear the potential backlash or negative consequences of taking a stand on controversial issues. Gellert argued that true leadership requires the courage to stand up for one’s values, even in the face of potential criticism or opposition.
Desire for leaders to be seen as leaders
Gellert highlighted the importance of leaders being seen as leaders, regardless of their personal opinions or political affiliations. He suggested that when companies choose to remain silent on important issues, it can be perceived as a lack of leadership. Gellert challenged companies to embrace their role as leaders and to be willing to take a stand on important issues, even if it may be unpopular with certain segments of the population.
Read more about the Latest Money News
Governor Ron DeSantis’ anti-woke campaign
Gellert specifically mentioned Governor Ron DeSantis’ anti-woke campaign as an example of the type of political climate that companies may fear engaging with. DeSantis has made opposition to “woke” culture a central focus of his campaign, which could potentially create challenges for companies who are seen as aligned with progressive values. Gellert argued that companies should not shy away from engaging in these conversations and should instead embrace their role as leaders to effect positive change.
Fear of backlash
Gellert identified fear of backlash as one of the main reasons companies avoid engaging in politics. He suggested that companies may be hesitant to take a stand on controversial issues out of fear that it could negatively impact their reputation or bottom line. Gellert emphasized the need for companies to overcome this fear and to engage in political conversations in a thoughtful and strategic manner.
Leadership as a drug for senior roles
Gellert suggested that the desire to be seen as a leader can be like a drug for people in senior roles. He noted that many individuals in these positions strive to be recognized as leaders and fear the potential consequences of taking a stand on controversial issues. Gellert argued that true leadership requires the willingness to take risks and to stand up for one’s values, even if it may be uncomfortable or unpopular.
Lack of consistency in companies’ engagement with politics
Gellert pointed out that many companies struggle with inconsistency when it comes to engaging in politics. He highlighted Patagonia’s long-standing commitment to environmental causes as an example of a values-centric operation. The company has been pledging 1% of its sales to environmental causes since 1985. However, Gellert noted that many companies try to jump into political conversations without a clear understanding of where they stand on the issue. This lack of consistency can often lead to backlash and the perception of insincerity.
Patagonia’s values-centric operation
Gellert highlighted Patagonia as an example of a values-centric operation. He emphasized the importance of companies knowing their values and using them as a guide when engaging in political conversations. Patagonia’s commitment to environmental causes has been a key aspect of their business model for decades, and this consistency has allowed them to effectively navigate the political landscape without compromising their beliefs.
Pledging sales to environmental causes
Gellert mentioned Patagonia’s longstanding practice of pledging 1% of its sales to environmental causes. This commitment to giving back has been a core part of Patagonia’s values since 1985. Gellert argued that this type of consistent engagement with social and environmental issues is essential for companies that want to effectively engage in political conversations. By aligning their actions with their values, companies can avoid accusations of insincerity and effectively make a positive impact in the world.
Companies walking back their engagement in the face of backlash
Gellert discussed the tendency for companies to walk back their engagement in politics at the first sign of backlash. He suggested that many companies try to please everyone and end up pleasing no one. Gellert emphasized the importance of staying true to one’s values even in the face of criticism or opposition. He argued that companies should avoid making knee-jerk reactions to backlash and instead focus on standing firm in their beliefs and values.
Trying to please everyone and pleasing no one
Gellert cautioned against the common approach of trying to please everyone when it comes to engaging in politics. He suggested that companies who attempt to appeal to all sides of an issue often end up pleasing no one. Gellert argued that true leadership requires the willingness to make difficult decisions and to take a stand, even if it may be unpopular with certain segments of the population. By staying true to their values, companies can effectively engage in political conversations without compromising their integrity.
Patagonia’s position as a for-profit business
Gellert emphasized that Patagonia is a for-profit business, despite its strong commitment to social and environmental causes. He noted that being a for-profit business gives Patagonia a seat at the table and allows them to have a greater impact on the world. Gellert suggested that other businesses can look to Patagonia as an example of how a for-profit company can effectively engage in politics and make a positive difference.
Ability to provide inspiration to other businesses
Gellert highlighted Patagonia’s ability to inspire other businesses to engage in politics and take a stand on important issues. He argued that by demonstrating the impact that a values-centric operation can have, Patagonia can encourage other companies to follow suit. Gellert emphasized the need for businesses to use their platform and influence to effect meaningful change in the world.
Having a seat at the table
Gellert emphasized the importance of having a seat at the table in political discussions. He noted that as a business, Patagonia has the opportunity to influence policy and effect change in ways that government and NGOs often cannot. Gellert argued that by actively engaging in politics, businesses can play a vital role in shaping the future and addressing important social and environmental issues.
Opportunity to make a difference as a business
Gellert spoke to the unique opportunity that businesses have to make a difference in the world. He suggested that businesses can have a greater impact on social and environmental issues than government or NGOs alone. Gellert encouraged companies to embrace this opportunity and to use their platform to effect positive change in society.
Contrast with government and NGOs
Gellert contrasted the role of businesses with that of government and NGOs. He noted that businesses have the ability to act quickly and make immediate changes, whereas government processes can be slow and bureaucratic. Gellert also pointed out that businesses have the advantage of being able to leverage their resources and influence to effect change on a larger scale. He argued that by actively engaging in politics, businesses can fill a unique role in effecting positive change in society.
Applications for Most Innovative Companies
Gellert mentioned that applications are currently being accepted for the Most Innovative Companies list. He encouraged companies to apply for the chance to be featured on the list and to showcase their innovative approaches to business and social impact. Gellert emphasized the importance of recognizing and celebrating companies that are making a positive difference in the world.
Deadline for applications
Gellert noted that the deadline for applications for the Most Innovative Companies list is October 6. He encouraged companies to submit their applications before the deadline to be considered for inclusion. Gellert emphasized the benefits of being featured on the list, including increased visibility and recognition within the business community.
Chance to be featured
Gellert highlighted the opportunity for companies to be featured on the Most Innovative Companies list as a way to showcase their innovative approaches and positive impact. He encouraged companies to seize this chance to inspire others and to demonstrate the power of business to effect change. Gellert emphasized the importance of celebrating and recognizing companies that are leading the way in innovation and social responsibility.
Promotion for application submissions
Gellert mentioned that there will be ongoing promotion for application submissions to the Most Innovative Companies list. He encouraged companies to stay updated on the application process and to take advantage of the opportunity to showcase their innovative approaches. Gellert noted that being featured on the list can provide valuable recognition and visibility for companies.
Deadline and selection process
Gellert reminded companies to submit their applications before the October 6 deadline. He noted that the selection process for the Most Innovative Companies list will entail a thorough evaluation of each company’s innovation, impact, and overall contribution to their respective industries. Gellert emphasized the importance of presenting a compelling case for inclusion and showcasing the unique value that each company brings.
Tech news
In other tech news, Patagonia’s CEO discussion on companies’ fear of engaging in politics has sparked a conversation around the intersection of business and social impact. The talk shed light on the challenges that companies face when it comes to navigating political landscapes and highlighted the importance of knowing one’s values before taking a stand.
Matthew Butterick and Joseph Saveri suing AI’s biggest players
In addition to Patagonia’s CEO discussion, Matthew Butterick and Joseph Saveri have filed lawsuits against AI’s biggest players. This legal action brings attention to the growing concerns surrounding the ethics and influence of artificial intelligence in various industries. The lawsuits are likely to have far-reaching implications and could potentially shape the future of AI regulation and accountability.
