forbes.com
Businesses Must Choose: Progressive Resistance or Decline
The article discusses how businesses globally are facing a choice regarding social progress: retreat, stay silent or lead 'progressive resistance,' showcasing examples of companies actively embedding social progress into their strategies to mitigate risks and gain competitive advantages.
- What are the immediate financial risks and opportunities for businesses due to the global decline in social progress?
- Businesses face a choice: retreat, remain silent, or lead 'progressive resistance' against the global erosion of social progress. This erosion risks employee loyalty, innovation, and profitability, but also presents an opportunity to link social progress to business success. McKinsey research shows that gender-diverse companies are 25% more likely to be highly profitable, demonstrating the financial benefits of social progress.
- What long-term competitive advantages will businesses gain by prioritizing social progress and progressive resistance?
- Future success hinges on businesses' commitment to social progress. Companies that actively defend human rights, invest in social infrastructure, and embed social progress into their models will thrive. Those that remain silent risk losing workforce, customer, and investor trust, highlighting the competitive advantage of progressive resistance.
- How are companies around the world actively using their resources and influence to promote social progress despite setbacks?
- The article highlights how companies are actively combating the decline in social progress through various strategies. Examples include Natura &Co's partnerships to protect the Amazon, asset managers' creation of fossil-free portfolios, and Woolworths Holdings' focus on diversity and inclusion. These actions show a direct link between social responsibility and financial success.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames social progress as inextricably linked to business success, emphasizing the positive financial implications of socially responsible actions. While this is a valid point, the framing might downplay the ethical and moral imperatives for businesses to engage in social progress, suggesting that profit is the primary motivator.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, positive language to describe 'progressive resistance,' and portrays companies that don't embrace this approach negatively ('retreat into silence,' 'lose trust'). While persuasive, this language lacks neutrality and might sway readers towards a specific viewpoint.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the business case for social progress, potentially omitting counterarguments or challenges to this perspective. While acknowledging the benefits, it doesn't delve into potential downsides or limitations of the suggested strategies. This omission could lead readers to an overly optimistic view of the ease and universality of implementing these initiatives.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between 'retreat, continue and stay silent, or step up to lead progressive resistance,' oversimplifying the range of responses businesses might adopt. It doesn't explore nuanced approaches or situations where immediate, strong action might not be feasible or appropriate.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article emphasizes the positive correlation between social progress (including gender diversity, climate resilience, community investment) and business profitability. Companies actively promoting social progress are shown to experience improved financial outcomes, thus reducing inequality by fostering economic opportunities and fair practices.