With homosexual marriage gaining converts among the young, the party of the Moral Majority declines to stand with Chick-fil-A.
A traditional corporate executive may have power within the company, but a woke CEO can use the corporate bully pulpit to exert influence over society.
For decades, activist shareholders were an entertaining, but largely ignored, Wall Street sideshow. Disgruntled investors would attend annual meetings to harangue executives, criticize strategies - and protest that their complaints were being ignored.
I don't believe it's appropriate for me or any other CEO to wade into every political dispute. That's not what we're here for.
Elon Musk isn’t everyone’s idea of a hero, but in wresting Twitter from the grip of the Maoists who dominate our culture, he made a small but significant contribution to our public discourse.
Back in the 1970s, Kodak tried to give $25m to a black civil rights organisation in Rochester, New York. The company's shareholders rose up in arms: making this politically charged offering wasn't the reason they had entrusted Kodak with their money. The donation was withdrawn.
When do corporations begin to lose their credibility? They fought Social Security, Medicare, auto safety. They fought every social justice movement in this country.
What I see increasingly is that companies are playing political roles. We should actually have our research and our laws map that.
I wish that Google would realize its own power in the cause of free speech. The debate has been often held about Google's role in acceding to the Chinese government's demands to censor search results. Google says that it is better to have a hampered internet than no internet at all. I believe that if the Chinese people were threatened with no Google, they might even rise up and demand free speech - free search and links - from their regime. Google lives and profits by free speech and must use its considerable power to become a better guardian of it.
I do think, actually, one thing I noticed with Silicon Valley post-Trump is it kind of made them more politically aware, more aware that, like, business and philanthropy alone isn't going to make the world a better place.
The fashion industry is often charged with having kept its blinders on as one Seventh Avenue company after another lost employees to AIDS. Consumers, it was feared, would shun the racks of designers whose names were associated with the disease. And to stand up against AIDS would, in many minds, confirm the business's stereotypical image.
I always saw myself as a large stockholder trying to make a difference. I wasn't raiding anybody.
Business leaders cannot be bystanders.
My own feeling is that a corporation has no right to have a political or social influence.
I don't view Apple or myself as an activist. What we do is for some things where we think we have deep knowledge, or think we do, or a strong point of view, we're not shy. We'll stand up, speak out - even when our voice shakes.
A liberal public is interesting to have as an audience. It is for that very reason that corporations make such an effort to ally themselves with cultural institutions.
[Addressing businessmen regarding politicians:] I don't know why you're not involved in their business; they're involved in our [expletive] business every day.
A lot of people say that I'm an activist CEO. I just think I'm a responsible leader of a business.
If you happen to believe what Ben & Jerry's is supporting and involved in, then you should support the company. If you don't believe in what we are supporting, don't support it.
We'll continue to see more and more brands integrate social causes, charitable components and environmental issues as underlying themes to their campaigns and messaging. Humans connect with humans after all, and brands are using this as a point of connection to engage with their audience, especially charity-minded Generation Y.
I did always say I wanted to infiltrate from within. That was always my reasoning behind going into partnership with a luxury group that uses a lot of leather in their products.
More brands are waking up to their social responsibility and doing good work through cause marketing campaigns. Yet too many still go about it the wrong way. I mean 'wrong' in two senses. Firstly, they are marketing ineffectively, and secondly, as a consequence their positive social impact is not maximized.
A lot of people like the idea of companies being socially involved in their community, but if you want big companies to get involved in social issues, what makes you think they're going to come down on your side?
I happen to agree with the anti-dictatorship policies, but I don't think it's the role of General Electric to support them or oppose them. They do of course, but I don't agree with that.
When corporations try to use their economic power to advance a woke agenda, they become political, and not merely economic, actors.
