Warning: Social issues can be scalding hot topics
Tim Hortons controversy shows the risks of taking sides
Conservative political strategist Stephen Taylor was in his Ottawa office keeping an eye on Twitter when he saw something from Tim Hortons that caught his attention.
An American left-wing activist organization called SumOfUs had presented the coffee shop chain with a 30,000-signature petition, demanding that it remove advertisements for Enbridge Inc. from its in-store video screens because of the company’s connection to Alberta’s oilsands.
Taylor watched as Tim Hortons responded to the campaign’s supporters on Twitter: “We value your feedback and the Enbridge advertisements are no longer airing on Tims TV.”
Two can play at that game, Taylor realized. He tweeted that some powerful people he knew wouldn’t be happy about Tim Hortons’ decision, including cabinet ministers Jason Kenney and Michelle Rempel, and coined a hashtag for people upset that the chain had sided with environmental activists over a major Canadian employer: #BoycottTims.
“I felt those campaigners were running roughshod over Canadian businesses, those sectors that are very much foundational to Canada’s national economic interest,” Taylor said.
“I wanted to level the playing field.”
And so began the backlash against the backlash. #BoycottTims quickly rose to the No. 1 trending topic on Twitter in Canada, garnering widespread media attention and inspiring former Sun News Network pundit Ezra Levant to pay a visit to Tim Hortons’ Oakville, Ont. headquarters and stake out executives in the lobby.
Tim Hortons has been silent on the issue since pulling the ads and company spokespeople did not respond to a request for comment. But its attempt to weather the storm by staying as neutral as possible ended up angering both sides in a world where consumers expect companies to take a stand on social issues, not just sell products and services.
American companies have been much more willing than their Canadian counterparts to go on the offensive with political causes. As the gay marriage debate heated up, major corporations whose business has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage nevertheless lined up to offer both support (Amazon.com Inc., General Mills Inc., Google Inc.) and opposition (fastfood chicken chain Chik-fil-A Inc.).
Brendan Eich, former chief executive of the Mozilla Foundation that develops the open-source software powering the Firefox browser, was pressured to resign last year in the wake of a firestorm over a donation he had made to an anti-gay marriage cause.
In 2001, Paul Klein founded Impakt, a Toronto-based consulting firm that works with companies to develop social responsibility strategies. Back then, the concept was still new and unusual, with ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. and hair and skin care company The Body Shop International PLC among the only corporations making advocacy for social causes part of their marketing pitch.
Things changed after the 2008 recession, Klein said. Consumers were angry at corporations that appeared to only be interested in profits and suddenly had social media at their disposal to voice that anger.
“People were looking for a sense of meaning in their lives,” Klein said. “That, I think, was a kind of trigger for corporations thinking more about their role in society.”
Today, the concept is everywhere. Consumers are using their shopping money as a statement of political identity, rewarding companies that promise their products are natural, ethically made and authentic. A study by information and measurement company Nielsen found 55 per cent of global online consumers across 60 countries said they would pay more for products and services provided by companies that had made commitments to “positive social and environmental impact.”
Klein encourages companies to take a more American-style approach to corporate social responsibility, proactively developing goals for social change based on issues that matter to their employees, customers and the communities where they operate. If a company is caught in a storm of controversy like Tim Hortons was, he said its leaders should consider their values, ask what’s legal, appropriate and morally right, and take a stand on that side.
“The likelihood of this kind of thing coming up is increasing,” Klein said. “Social media is driving it even more.”
It’s now common for companies to produce an annual corporate social responsibility report, but Canadian companies tend to focus on initiatives that are directly related to their businesses and their public relations image. Loblaw Cos. Ltd., for example, became an early signatory to The Accord for Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh after the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse that killed more than 1,100 garment workers, including some working on the company’s Joe Fresh clothing line.
Brand consultant Tony Chapman said American companies are more likely to get involved in potentially controversial social issues because American politics are more polarized.
Americans take their identities as Republicans or Democrats with them when they go shopping, which helps explain why a chain like Starbucks might be willing to anger the National Rifle Association by asking customers not to bring guns into their stores if it wins loyalty with its liberal base.
“If you’re caught in the crossfire as a brand and you feel like you’re under attack and there’s a danger of a boycott, it’s fight or flight,” Chapman said. “We tend to, as Canadians, like flight.”
Bell parent company BCE Inc. is a rare example of a Canadian corporation that has decided the risks of a social cause campaign unrelated to its business are worth the rewards. On Bell’s annual Let’s Talk Day, the company agrees to donate five cents to mental health initiatives for every tweet, text, call and social media share using the hashtag #BellLetsTalk.
Mary Deacon, Chair of Bell’s Mental Health Initiative, said some people do use the hashtag to tweet negative or abusive comments. But Deacon said taking a risk was worth it, with most people using the hashtag to talk about mental health and the stigma surrounding it.
“It isn’t tied to our products and services, but the fact that we are in the communications business and we have a highly well-known brand and a long history has actually given us the ability to bring that conversation forward,” Deacon said. “I really feel there has been a shift in the last five years, that more people are talking.”
Tim Hortons may not have been able to please everyone with the controversy over the Enbridge ads, but it could have at least pleased one group of people by picking a side. Taylor said he hopes the #BoycottTims hashtag sent a message that companies can’t avoid bad publicity by caving in to one group.
“Once you’re at the top, it seems like companies are interested in keeping the waters still,” he said. “I think Tim Hortons could still recover from this by offering Tims TV and the Tims coffee shop as a place where Canadians of all political stripes and all walks can come and have a cup of coffee and talk about the issues.”