sent<\/a>\u00a0his piggy-bank jar down to Florida \u201cbecause they have a hurricane and their office is gonna go down and they need more stuff.\u201d For that they are genuinely to be congratulated and asked to continue down this sensible, duty-fulfilling, neutral path.<\/p>\nHerewith, then, some suggested guidelines for corporations should they attempt to return to their fiduciary duties and get themselves out of the paths of hurricanes that they\u2019re whipping up for themselves by taking sides (well, taking a side \u2013 the left one) in pretty much all of the culture wars.<\/p>\n
Step one:<\/strong> Ask yourselves, \u201cWill taking this stand offend huge numbers of our investors and customers?\u201d Then quickly realize that you don\u2019t know, and that probably no one in your comfortably lefty C-suite has any idea either. Hire a set of conservatives and libertarians on whom to test your ideas. By conservative I don\u2019t mean Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney and the ghost of Happy Rockefeller. Real, honest-to-goodness center\/right Americans. If they think that the guys at\u00a0The Dispatch<\/em>\u00a0are really on to something, you have the wrong crowd.<\/p>\nStep two:<\/strong> If your just-like-they\u2019re-real-people conservative caucus warns you that your idea is very partisan and contentious, or even possibly quite illegal, drop it. Or, if you insist on pretending that somehow your conservative caucus is chalk full of extremists and monsters, conduct a poll using a polling company that doesn\u2019t have a track record of underestimating Republican turnout in contentious elections. If more than, say, 10 percent of the respondents think your idea is offensive and partisan, drop it. (Maybe 10 percent of the country \u2013 five percent from each side \u2013 can be written off as extremist. But if you want to write off a third to half-or-more of the country as extremists, you\u2019re just revealing your own profound partisanship and therefore your own inherent \u2013 systemic, even? \u2013 breach of fiduciary duty.)<\/p>\nStep three:<\/strong> If you still really, really want to do the thing that you now know will be very contentious, you might be tempted to claim that you have to do the partisan thing because \u201cscience\u201d declares that it\u2019s necessary. You\u2019re almost certainly wrong about that, but if you want to explore it fully, seek out scientists who have questioned your scientific conclusion and come to fully understand their scientific objections. If those objections have sufficient validity to cast the science of your position into reasonable doubt, then your claim that \u201cscience makes you be partisan\u201d has been falsified.<\/p>\nStep four:<\/strong> If the science you are citing stands up to that test, go to other experts who agree with that science but nonetheless oppose your position to make sure that you\u2019re right that science\u00a0forces<\/em>\u00a0you into the partisan stand. By way of example, \u201ccarbon dioxide load is a factor in determining the Earth\u2019s temperature\u201d by itself, tells no one anything about the necessity for or appropriate speed of decarbonization. If you can\u2019t defend every step between the true science and the contentious position, policy or action, you are not justified in wading into partisanship and controversy.<\/p>\nStep five:<\/strong> Reject any claims that you have to take a partisan position because some of your customers, employees and investors will be offended if you\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0take that position. Remember that for every contentious political or social position, there are partisans on both sides. If you admit that you have to take a partisan position to avoid offending the partisans, then you also have to recognize that there are other partisans who take the exact opposite position who you also have to not offend. Otherwise you\u2019re just taking a partisan side, which violates your fiduciary duty. So, \u201cbut we have to agree with the partisans or they will be offended\u201d is an incoherent position for an objectively run company to take.<\/p>\nStep six:<\/strong> To borrow from Monty Python, there is\u00a0no\u00a0<\/em>step six. Just these five simple steps can save your company from huge partisan missteps and perhaps yourselves from eventual rustication when those missteps end up costing the company, as many of them have already demonstrably cost companies that provide entertainment.<\/p>\nGenuine kudos to all of the companies that have set aside their dangerous ideological agitation to help everyone who suffered at the hands of Hurricane Ian. Now keep it up.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Scott Shepard<\/a> is a fellow at the\u00a0<\/em> National Center for Public Policy Research<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and Director of its\u00a0<\/em>Free Enterprise Project<\/em><\/a>. This originally appeared at RealClearMarkets<\/a>.<\/em><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Sensible, neutral corporate activism efforts are possible. As Florida and the rest of the southeast assess the damage from Ian, even Disney appears to be getting it right. Long before basements had finished drying or residents finished digging out, a series of companies had honorably…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":42745,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[732,30,655],"tags":[712],"yoast_head":"\n
In Ian's Wake Even Disney Gets Corporate Activism Right, For Once - The National Center<\/title>\n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n