KINGSTON, R.I. – Feb. 14, 2025 – While the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark Citizens United decision found that corporations were to be treated as individuals, for purposes of free speech, companies taking a stand on religious or social issues isn’t a new phenomenon.
Chick-Fil-A doesn’t publicly advertise it, but the company closes on Sundays to adhere to its Christian values. Similarly, B&H Video mentions on its website that its checkout process is paused between Friday night and Saturday night in observance of Shabbat.
The 30th anniversary of Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign addressed racial and social injustices. The company’s 2018 “Dream Crazy” campaign and ads featured former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, who had drawn support and ire after taking a knee during the national anthem. Though the campaign was deemed successful, it was initially met with backlash. There were viral videos on social media of people setting their Nike gear ablaze.
It was against this backdrop that Joon Kim, an assistant professor at the Harrington School of Communications and Media at the University of Rhode Island, began investigating the relationship between corporate social advocacy and customer behavior.
“It was one of the most controversial campaigns of 2018,” said Kim.
As a result, Kim authored a paper, The role of corporate social advocacy forms in shaping young adults’ responses, along with Jegoo Lee, an assistant professor of management in URI’s College of Business, that was published in Corporate Communications: An International Journal in July of 2024. The paper found that for young consumers actions speak louder than words– essentially, it’s not enough to provide a statement; tangible actions need to be taken when it comes to social issues.
Corporate social advocacy stems from corporate social responsibility though they differ in many ways. Kim defines corporate social responsibility as largely philanthropic in nature; when a company pledges to donate a portion of its proceeds to a charitable cause, like combating child hunger.
Corporate social advocacy not only includes philanthropy but also encourages companies to take a definitive stand on controversial socio-political issues, like DEI initiatives, gun control laws, or advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights.
“Some customers will support your decision or your advocacy, whereas other groups may boycott you,” said Kim. “My research aims to find and understand why some people support or disapprove of a certain stance, and how it swayed their preferences in brands.”
Kim tested this concept by analyzing Disney’s response to the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” law. The law, passed in 2022, prohibited teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity with students under third grade. Disney came under fire after it appeared to flip flop on the issue—expressing support for the LGBTQ+ community only after it was revealed the company had donated to the bill’s sponsor.
For his research, Kim modified Disney’s social media posts to display different levels of support for the LGBTQ+ community. Some posts merely conveyed a message of support without any action, while others included statements of specific actions Disney intended to take in support of the community. An experimental group of about 130 young adults in 2023 viewed the posts during the experiment, and their responses were clear.
“When Disney showed that they support the LGBTQ+ community without any action, participants showed more skepticism and reported that they would be less likely to buy Disney products,” said Kim. “When they saw Disney mention that they would take action, participants displayed a higher level of support and positive attitudes toward the company.”
The study highlighted that it’s not enough for companies to simply issue a generic statement. Companies must take the extra step and demonstrate a tangible commitment to the causes that they endorse. Kim notes that with any cause companies need to understand they will have supporters and detractors.
Generational Factors
Additionally, Kim discovered that generational factors play a significant role in shaping consumer attitudes toward corporate social advocacy. Members of Generation Z, particularly younger individuals, tend to place a greater emphasis on social responsibility when choosing which brands they support, he said.
“Many companies know that Gen Z-ers, especially the younger ones, want their favorite companies to display their stances on issues they care about,” said Kim.
Kim emphasizes the importance of authenticity in corporate advocacy. Many companies have faced backlash after showing inconsistency in their stances. Target, for instance, came under fire from the right and is facing a class action lawsuit from shareholders alleging the company failed to disclose the potential financial risks of its DEI initiatives. The lawsuit came after the company saw declining stock prices, sales and boycotts related to its DEI and Pride initiatives. The company made headlines years before for its inclusivity and being one of the first to roll out gender neutral products, but earlier this year rescinded its DEI initiatives and is now under fire from the left.
“When your company is inconsistent, people become skeptical about what the true motives are behind any company’s action,” said Kim.
In future research Kim intends to explore whether proactive corporate advocacy—such as actively working to influence policies such as stricter gun control legislation —yields better consumer reaction versus reactive advocacy—such as responding to social issues by donating to causes.