Rising Interest in the Common Ground Scorecard

/by

Episode 6

Our Take on - Common Ground - Episode 06

Are political tides turning toward common ground? Our co-founders explore the evolving landscape.

Seeking common ground and reaching out to the other side may play a greater role in next year’s election than in previous years. During a recent visit to Washington, Common Ground Committee co-founders Bruce Bond and Erik Olsen noted increased interest in the Common Ground Scorecard among Members of Congress and their staffs.

“There’s definitely from a polarization perspective more interest in getting away from that in the upcoming election,” said Bruce Bond in this episode.

Erik Olsen says that during meetings with Members of Congress, “they are very interested in representing themselves as bipartisan.”

This episode of Our Take on Common Ground also focuses on findings of a recent survey that found two-thirds of voters said they would be considering the degree to which a candidate worked with members of the other party as a factor in their voting decisions.

Separate research conducted for the anti-polarization movement Starts With Us, was also discussed. A recent study found that seven Members of Congress with the lowest numbers on the Scorecard received much more news media coverage than those with the highest scores.

Bruce Bond

Bruce Bond is Co-Founder, CEO and Board Chair of Common Ground Committee. He is a 30-year veteran of the information technology industry including an executive position at world-renowned analyst firm Gartner, launching several successful software start-ups, and roles as industry analyst, software developer, and chief information officer (CIO). Mr. Bond graduated with an AB degree in Politics from Princeton University where he was a national-class distance runner.

Erik Olsen

Erik L. Olsen is Co-Founder, CFO and Board Member of Common Ground Committee. He has more than 25 years of experience in investment management and fund management, and nine years of real estate investment experience. Mr. Olsen serves as Managing Partner of CataMetrics Management, a Registered Investment Advisory firm. Mr. Olsen specializes in macroeconomic analysis and policy issues. Mr. Olsen holds a B.A. degree from Principia College and an M.B.A. from the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA.

common ground agreements in the workplace

Part 3: Corporate Civic Engagement Resources for Corporations

/by

This is the third in a three-part series on the rise of corporate civic engagement, an increasingly important component of good governance for an evolving business community and an evolving nation. Part 1 explained the importance of corporate civic engagement and Part 2 presented examples of how corporations have become engaged in civic and social issues.

There is no indication that corporations will find the political landscape easier to navigate in the coming years. In fact, as the Democratic and Republican parties become more entrenched thanks to partisan redistricting and the primary process continuing to weed out moderate candidates, it is more likely that the corporate leaders will find themselves trying to balance on an ever-narrower beam.

Often, corporations are compelled by stakeholders – employees, shareholders, customers, and government officials – to take a stand once a divisive issue becomes a major point of contention in the news media or on social media. Sometimes that may be unavoidable, but there are other occasions where prior planning can make those moments less confrontational and better for business. The Common Ground Committee has put together some resources that can help in either or both of those situations. Some are consultants, one is a coalition of businesses and another is a business-driven academic program. Each business will need to decide what option is appropriate and, in some cases, more than one might be a good fit.

The Common Ground Committee does not endorse any of these resources, nor has it conducted business with any of them. Any company interested in exploring these options should fully investigate what works best for their needs. We welcome your feedback that may inform possible updates to this research.

Business for America

During her 15 years at Apple, Sarah Bonk devoted considerable volunteer time to nonpartisan political reform and civic organizations. But by 2017 she wanted to do more, to have a greater impact. After initially considering a focus on climate, Bonk realized policy could not be changed until the public policy system was addressed. So, leaning on her expertise in the business community, she launched Business for America, which works with the corporate world on bipartisan political reforms and technological improvements for democracy. 

As Bonk explains it, “No one in business intentionally means to harm democracy. Having a well-functioning democracy is in the best interest of business in the long-term.” As a membership-oriented trade group, BFA works to mobilize corporations toward action on behalf of democracy.

“We believe that the business community and the public have a shared interest in the health of our representative democracy — and we see immense potential for the business community to take a leadership role.”

What began as a platform for addressing the role of money in politics has expanded to include electoral reform and civic education. Members may pick and choose which activities are best for them. “You get to choose what is the right flavor for your business, the right way to lean in,” Bonk says. But the bulk of the work is focused on public policy advocacy rather than civic engagement, separating BFA’s work from some of the other organizations introduced below.

Not only is the work limited to issues of democracy, but it is further narrowed to concepts that have broad, bipartisan support. For example, BFA has invited its members to join the push for the Electoral Count Reform Act and the Civic Secures Democracy Act. The former would revise the rules governing the role of Congress and vice president in ratifying the electoral votes, while the latter would invest $1 billion in civic education. Both measures are supported by Republicans and Democrats.

On the other hand, BFA did not support the sweeping election reform bill known as the For the People Act, or H.R. 1, because it was a partisan bill pushed through the House by Democrats without any Republican input or support.

(BFA is supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would replace elements of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court, even though it lacks Republican support. As Bonk notes, until recently, the VRA had always received widespread backing from both parties, from initial passage through multiple renewals.)

There are no preconditions for joining BFA. Members must merely be for-profit corporations and pay a membership fee. Then they choose how to demonstrate their support for democracy. Some decide that providing financial support and lending their brand is sufficient. Others want to engage in advocacy efforts. They may do so by signing on to a letter in support of legislation, joining a coordinated lobbying campaign, taking action on their own or writing op-eds.

“You’re under pressure to do something about this crisis, about democracy, about voting rights, about election integrity. It’s hard to know what to do or to stick your head out there alone,” Bonk says. “BFA is there to help with a practical, bipartisan approach to a system of government that can endure as our Founders envisioned.”

In fact, she believes corporations have an obligation to defend democracy.

“As businesses who have benefited from the economic system and the stability it has afforded and the freedoms it has afforded us, you have a responsibility to help other people benefit from what you benefited from.”

Civic Alliance

In recent years, individual companies have increased their support for voter participation by offering time off to vote, providing voter education tools, and donating time and resources for election administration. But there’s a growing understanding that corporate civic engagement requires year-round efforts to support employees and customers, not just programming geared around Election Day.

That idea led to Civic Alliance, a coalition that has grown to nearly 1,300 corporations pledging to strengthen democracy. Democracy Works, a nonprofit that develops technology to help people vote, and the CAA Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the high-powered Creative Artists Agency, united in early 2020 to launch the Civic Alliance as a way to support corporations that want to increase voter engagement.

That first year, Civic Alliance focused on promoting voter registration, helping people find where to voter, and encouraging first-time voters. Before uniting in that effort, the two organizations claimed to have nearly 5 million people vote in 2018.

Since then the mission has expanded. Civic Alliance now works with companies to develop civic engagement plans that go beyond voting, including educating employees and customers about how to run for office, serve on a board or simply have a voice. But the organization also helps companies stand up for democracy.

“We stand together in support of fair and transparent elections, in which voting is safe and accessible. And we use the combined influence of our platforms to empower every American to use their voice.”

Civic Alliance has issued three nonpartisan public statements, each of which member companies were invited to sign, in response to attacks on democracy. One promoted election integrity, calling for safe access to the polls, trust in election officials, and patience as the 2020 votes were counted. The second called for a peaceful transition of power following the events of Jan. 6, 2021. And the third protested a wave of state legislation offered in the spring of 2021 that made it harder for people to vote.

During 2021-22, Civic Alliance has offered its members toolkits on redistricting, civic holidays, and midterm elections to encourage engagement year-round. Looking ahead, materials will be prepared on the off-year state elections, civic education, and other opportunities to engage beyond voting.

“We talk about a company building a civic culture internally, whether providing civic education or helping people navigate civics in their [employee resource groups],” says Sarah Gwilliam, a senior program manager at Meteorite and a member of the Civic Alliance team.

One of the key initiatives is continuing the Election Day of Service. Launched for the 2020 election, the program encourages companies to contribute poll workers, physical space for voting, legal support for election workers and other resources.

Joining Civic Alliance is a simple, cost-free process. A company representative just needs to visit the Civic Alliance website, pledge to encourage civic engagement by employees and/or customers, and then start building programs.

The core toolkit available to members is the Corporate Civic Playbook, which helps companies develop an action plan specific to their culture and goals and apply best practices developed by other Civic Alliance members.

Corporate Civic Consultants

 

Recognizing a gap in the market, Mairin Macaluso co-founded Corporate Civic Consultants in late 2021 to help companies that “have a need and don’t know how to rise to the moment.” As Macaluso explains, not responding to political, civic and societal issues is no longer an option for companies – not when they are getting pressure from employees and investors and need to rebuild trust among all stakeholders.

CCC’s strategy for corporate leaders and boards involves proactively addressing issues, rather than waiting for the market to force action. 

“CCC partners with companies to reduce risks, realize opportunities and build the civic capabilities that modern stakeholders demand.”

To achieve those goals, CCC is building a set of tools and guidelines that will help companies build a “probiotic” strategy, in Macaluso’s vision, rather than waiting for employees, investors or customers to demand action. The broad strategy focuses first on business strategy (“What is the business problem you’re trying to solve?”) and then addressing the societal implications (“How can having a good civic engagement strategy help that?”)

One key part of the CCC strategy is to break down the walls that silo civic engagement efforts within a company. For example, roles may be divided among governmental affairs, communications, and talent human resources all have pieces of this pie. Without one point of contact, there may be little responsibility and little accountability.

Before launching CCC, Macaluso was the director of member impact and engagement at the Leadership Now Project, a membership organization focused on helping business leaders support and improve American democracy. While CCC is separate from Leadership Now, Macaluso is able to leverage relationships built during that phase of her career to broaden the services she can now offer. 

For example, if a corporation wants to work on resolving polarization within its workforce, she can tap into groups like More in Common, Civic Genius and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

Macaluso acknowledges there are pre-existing resources for corporations in the marketplace, such as crisis communications advisors and traditional consulting firms that offer environmental, social and governance (ESG) or corporate social responsibility (CSR) guidance, but those have drawbacks. Often, they are reactive rather than proactive, and they are careful about engaging on divisive issues. “Why would McKinsey jeopardize their business by rocking the boat with one company while helping another?” Macaluso says. “No one focuses on corporate civic engagement or corporate political responsibility.”

Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce

Housed within the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainability in Business, the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce is designed to help companies be more proactive, principled and integrated, according to Doty. With the public and stakeholders looking to corporations to take a more active role in solving the societal problems, business leaders are under pressure to develop plans that will meet those demands while also protecting the economic goals. CPRT aims to help them accomplish both by creating a framework to follow.

“We are trying to help companies better align their approach to political influence to their commitments,” Doty says.

CPRT is currently working with six Fortune 500 companies, including IBM, to build the initial version of that framework. To be included in that initial cohort, corporations had to meet three criteria: 

  • Each had to have already placed a stake in the ground as good corporate citizens
  • Their names had to carry the weight necessary to make other corporate leaders curious.
  • They had to be a work in progress, looking to improve on their corporate political responsibility.

One of the big ideas developed by the taskforce is the use of an outbound impact assessment, commonly used in Europe for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues. Such an assessment can help a corporation predict where it might face pressure in the future. For example, a retail business might consider whether it is impacting employees’ ability to vote. 

The taskforce has also identified three criteria for determining when to engage on an issue:

  • If the company is contributing to the problem.
  • If the company has already made a related commitment (such as encouraging people to vote, employee empowerment, promoting women’s rights, etc.)
  • If the problem is of such consequence that it is foundational to the entire system.

For many companies, voting rights (particularly for people of color), hits all three bullet points, according to Doty, noting that they contribute to the problem by donating to state legislators who change the voting rules

In the end companies want to know how they can increase trust among their customers, employees and investors. The taskforce believes that can be accomplished through transparent and accountable participation in society. The framework will help companies develop cross-functional structures with accountability reporting that focuses on their contributions and commitments to the public space.

Over the course of 2022 and 2023, the taskforce expects to double its membership as it refines the framework and grows the program. Eventually, the framework will become available to more businesses, which will also be able to participate in an annual forum.

Impactual

A strategy and consulting firm that claims its expertise is “creating a healthy democracy,” Impactual traces its lineage to one of of the biggest brands in voter engagement. The agency’s founder and president, Ashley Spillane, ran the MTV-spawned Rock the Vote and has been credited with rebuilding the program at a time when young voters were seeking news ways to get engaged.

Spillane also co-authored a Harvard Kennedy school study on the voter participation initiatives run by eight companies during the 2018 elections. “Civic Responsibility: The Power of Companies to Increase Voter Turnout” found the companies were able to support democracy and improve their businesses without significant financial investment.

Impactual works with philanthropic organizations, corporate brands, influencers and nonprofits, providing a range of services that cover marketing and communications, creative work, program support, philanthropic advising and strategic planning – all with a goal of achieving nonpartisan civic engagement.

Clients have included Uber, YouTube, Converse and Viacom as well as philanthropic organizations like Democracy Fund and the James Beard Foundation.

Impactual “helps figure out how brands touch consumers and how to build a brand that is authentic,” according to Juiette Boberg, a senior director at the firm. And for companies that need crisis communication support when an issue of corporate civic responsibility arises, Impactual does it in “a more organized, pre-planned way.”

The firm’s past projects include:

  • Helping MTV Entertainment Group successfully run a program encouraging people to vote early, recruiting polls workers and explaining the election progress through creative digital content and in-person events.
  • Working with Uber to create election tools available within the ridesharing company’s app. By adding on email and social media elements, Uber reached tens of millions of people.

Additional Resources

The Dialogue Project

Housed at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, The Dialogue Project produced a report in 2021 on ways the business community can help improve civil discourse and reduce polarization. Researchers prepared case studies, conducted interviews with CEOs and other business leaders, and utilized quantitative data from Morning Consult in preparing the report, which contained some eye-opening results.

They found that more than half of Americans said the inability of people to have respectful dialogue with someone who has opposing views is a major problem. And the hardest issues to discuss are politics, race/ethnicity, immigration, gun laws and sexual orientation – and those are also the hardest issues on which to find common ground, according to the research.

But nearly 80 percent said people “need to be more respectful when talking to people who do not agree with them.” And that’s where the Dialogue Project’s recommendations come in. The people running the program developed eight principles that companies should follow if they want to be part of the solution:

  1. Commitment starts from the top: listen and be accountable.
  2. Listen to understand, not win.
  3. Encourage and reward/acknowledge compromise.
  4. Value diverse points of view and make space for new ideas.
  5. Build and have empathy.
  6. Rely on facts instead of emotion.
  7. Ensure everyone feels heard.
  8. Start at the root of the problem.

Among the corporate leaders who have contributed their expertise to The Dialogue Project: Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Antonio Neri, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Suzanne Clark, General Motors CEO Mary Barra, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Walmart Inc. CEO Doug McMillon.

Traditional Crisis Communications 

The Common Ground Committee recognizes that some corporate leaders may still require traditional resources to support public relations campaigns, either because they are more comfortable with more established firms or need to respond to stakeholder demands.

These firms have not been vetted by CGC, nor do we recommend any of them. Each company should conduct any research necessary before hiring consultants.

Training Resources

Often, one piece of a corporate responsibility plan will include providing training opportunities for employees and other stakeholders. A number of organizations offer a range of services to teach people to engage in civil dialogue and how to find ways to bridge differences. The Common Ground Committee has no formal relationship with any of these organizations but offers them as a starting point. Companies interested in such services should fully research these and other options.

Mediation Resources

Sometimes, training isn’t enough and additional resources are needed to resolve conflicts – conflicts that can be detrimental to business goals. These organizations offer mediation resources, but, again, they are not recommended by Common Ground – merely provided as a starting point for research and vetting.

 

Corporate leaders interested in pursuing these (or other) options should take proper steps to determine what approaches best fits the business. The first step should be to determine the corporation’s values and needs? Do you need a way to support employees’ ability to vote? Do you want to become a prominent support of a healthy democracy? Do you need to be better prepared for possible criticisms for your stance on divisive political issues? Your mission, vision and values statements should help you determine what is needed.

While the Common Ground Committee does not endorse any specific solutions or solution providers, we believe this document offers a starting point for you to determine the best path forward. Inevitably, your employees, customers or shareholders are going to demand something more. These resources can help you address those concerns before they are even raised.

Common Ground Committee recommends that business decision makers move out of a defensive position and get in front of the effects resulting from polarization. Common Ground Committee can advise your company on understanding polarization, navigating resources and finding a more proactive posture to help depolarize a business environment, a community and the country.

Business Shaking Hands. Successful Businessmen Handshaking After

The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility

/by

This is the second in a three-part series on the rise of corporate civic engagement, an increasingly important component of good governance for an evolving business community and an evolving nation. Part 1 explained the importance of corporate civic engagement.

In its early days, corporate social responsibility (CSR) involved promoting economic growth, business ethics, and supporting the community. But as corporate leaders put those ideas into practice, they developed strategies that benefit both the brand and society, often related to philanthropy and environmentalism. The Harvard Business School identified some CSR exemplars:

  • Lego has worked toward sustainability by reducing the size of packaging and introducing environmentally friendly materials.

  • Salesforce created a “1-1-1” philanthropic model in which it donates 1% of its product, 1% of equity, and 1% of employees’ time to nonprofits and communities.

  • Ben & Jerry’s has made driving social change as important as profit.

  • Levi Strauss has changed the supply chain model by embracing workers’ rights and protecting the environment.

  • Starbucks made ethical sourcing of its products a key feature of its business.

While the corporate world has embraced practices like these, it has been slower to make civic engagement part of the business model – but there are leaders trying to show the path forward.

Business for America was founded by Sarah Bonk, who left her senior position at Apple to create a coalition of corporations and business leaders who want to create a healthier democracy by promoting civic engagement. BFA, which is both nonprofit and nonpartisan, argues CCR is critical in order to make CSR possible:

‍But purpose-driven companies cannot achieve their goals when our government fails to deliver policy solutions. Even policies supported by a large majority of Americans fail in this era of extreme political polarization, institutional distrust, and gridlock. The potential for the business community to provide a leadership role in addressing the root causes of these obstacles has been mostly overlooked — until now.

Many corporations have adopted some CCR practices, such as providing employees with time off to vote and voter education materials or backing pro-democracy political reforms, demonstrating a shift from shareholder capitalism toward stakeholder capitalism

“Today, with stakeholder capitalism, people have talked about the multiplicity of audiences that every single corporation or company serves,” says Davia Temin, a risk, reputation, and crisis management consultant. “That’s not just the investors. It’s the employees. It’s vendors. It’s potential employees. It’s the community. It’s the bigger issues… This makes companies need to sit back and evaluate … who am I? What do I stand for? What are my goals? Are these the noble goals that I have promised to people? How do I make money while at the same time holding on to these?”

And more and more often, these stakeholders are demanding that corporations take a position on a divisive issue or become more engaged in civic life. “We have companies being called up by all of their constituents to say something, do something, stand for something,” Temin says.

But until companies figure out their personalities, taking action can be difficult because values may be at odds with revenues. They are going to be compelled to make decisions about their priorities. As Temin put it, “We’re talking about the politicization of corporate America.”

With that in mind, the following are examples of how some of the biggest corporations in the United States have been drawn into political disputes, not always with a clear strategy in place.

Delta, Coca-Cola, and Voting Rights

The role of corporations in advocating for social issues returned to the forefront in 2021, as Republican state legislators across the country began introducing bills to tighten election laws. In states under Republican control, many of these bills became law. According to the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, 19 states enacted 34 laws designed to make it harder to vote in wake of Donald Trump’s loss in 2020 and subsequent, unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

No state drew more attention to its new election law than Georgia.

While the law guaranteed 17 days of early voting, most of its other provisions make it harder to vote. The state enhanced the requirements for voting by absentee ballot, limited the availability of drop boxes, prohibited the distribution of food or water to people standing in line to vote and gave more authority to the General Assembly at the expense of the secretary of state. Opponents of the law claim it’s a direct attack on the voting rights of minorities in the state after Joe Biden became the first Democrat to carry Georgia since Jimmy Carter and Democratic candidates won both of the state’s Senate seats.

After the bill was passed, two of Georgia’s biggest employers, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola, expressed their opposition to the new law.

Delta CEO Ed Bastien:

I need to make it crystal clear that the final bill is unacceptable and does not match Delta’s values.

The right to vote is sacred. It is fundamental to our democracy and those rights not only need to be protected but easily facilitated in a safe and secure manner.

After having time to now fully understand all that is in the bill, coupled with discussions with leaders and employees in the Black community, it’s evident that the bill includes provisions that will make it harder for many underrepresented voters, particularly Black voters, to exercise their constitutional right to elect their representatives. That is wrong.

Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey:

We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. … We all have a duty to protect everyone’s right to vote, and we will continue to stand up for what is right in Georgia and across the U.S.  

Notably, both statements were issued after the bill was passed, rather than prior to enactment, when the companies may have had an impact on the legislation. And they came after harsh criticism from more than 70 Black business leaders who opposed the legislation. And that was followed by an ad campaign featuring hundreds of companies expressing general support for voting rights without opposing any specific legislation.

The companies’ criticism soon turned partisan as Republican leaders, including President Donald Trump, called for a boycott of the businesses, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told corporations to “stay out of politics” and others blasted them as “woke.” Some Republican leaders in Georgia even called for increasing taxes on Delta and banning Coca-Cola products from state government offices.

The Reversal of Roe v. Wade

Perhaps no single issue, other than the 2020 election, has inflamed the passions of Americans like abortion. When the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 2022, ending federal protections for women seeking an abortion, the issue was left for the states to decide. Americans are deeply divided on the issue, citing health care arguments, religious beliefs, privacy rights, history, and more to claim the high ground in the debate.

And many corporations weighed in as well (some following the leak of the draft opinion that would largely reflect the final ruling), announcing benefits for employees seeking an abortion, including some that are based in Republican-controlled states. CNN Business compiled an initial list of corporate reactions:

  • Bumble said it would provide health care services and make donations to nonprofits that support reproductive rights.

  • Chobani added transportation benefits to its existing health care policy, to cover specialized care, including abortion.

  • Condé Nast said it will not only cover travel expenses for abortion services but also for infertility and gender reaffirmation.

  • Disney said it will provide coverage for people who need to travel. Meta announced plans to offer reimbursement for out-of-state travel, where permitted by law.

  • Dick’s Sporting Goods announced it will provide travel reimbursement.

  • Goldman Sachs said it was extended reimbursement for any medical procedures, treatments, and evaluation not available near an employee’s home.

  • Match Group already provides abortion benefits to its Texas employees and is considering expanding the coverage nationwide.

  • Microsoft expanded its health care support to include coverage for travel expenses for abortion services.

  • Starbucks (informed employees enrolled in the company’s health care plan that they will have access to a travel benefit for abortion services).

  • Warner Bros Discovery expanded benefits to cover out-of-state travel.

  • Zillow extended its coverage plan to include reimbursement for travel.

Some business affirmed their benefits packages already include covering travel expenses for out-of-state abortion services:

  • Accenture

  • Alaska Airlines

  • Apple

  • Comcast-NBC Universal

  • HP

  • HPE

  • Korger (includes fertility treatment)

  • JPMorgan Chase (expanded abortion coverage to include a travel benefit)

  • Levi Strauss

  • Netflix (which also announced plans to donate to organizations that support women like the Center for Reproductive Rights)

  • Nike

  • Uber (which also said it will also reimburse drivers sued for providing transportation to an abortion clinic)

  • Yelp

This list is by no means exhaustive and is not intended to demonstrate a partisan bias in Corporate America, but rather to show that – at least when it comes to abortion – some companies are willing to take a position regardless of the political repercussions and public perception that may follow.

A slight majority of Americans (51%) say they strongly or somewhat support brands speaking out about abortion access, with 34% somewhat or strongly opposed. However, just 41% support reimbursing employees for travel costs to obtain an out-of-state abortion, nearly the same 39% who oppose such policies. Just more than half (51%) support providing unspecified resources and assistance to employees affected by the Supreme Court decision (27% opposed).

The third installment in this series will offer resources for corporations looking to proactively develop civic engagement and social responsibility strategies.

Business Shaking Hands. Successful Businessmen Handshaking After

What is Corporate Civic Engagement, and Why Is It Important?

/by

This is the first in a three-part series on the rise of corporate civic engagement, an increasingly important component of good governance for an evolving business community and an evolving nation.

In 1971, the Committee for Economic Development issued a report titled, “Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations.” In what became known as a “social contract” between business and society, the nonprofit and nonpartisan business policy organization argued that the business community needed to take more responsibility for improving the environment and other societal issues.

“The discontinuity between what we have accomplished as producers and consumers and what we want in the way of a good society has engendered strong social pressures to close the gap – to improve the way the overall American system is working so that a better quality of life can be achieved for the entire citizenry within a well-functioning community,” the CED wrote.

That is quite different from economist Milton Friedman’s statement the previous year that “the sole purpose of a business is to generate profits for its shareholders.”

More than 50 years later, many corporations are still trying to find the right balance as they answer not only to shareholders but also customers, host communities, politicians, and activists. But now, as the nation has become increasingly polarized, the answers are harder to develop because seemingly every issue, every option has – unfortunately – become another battleground in the partisan culture war that has engulfed the nation. 

But we at the Common Ground Committee have been studying this evolution and believe there are ways to be productive corporate citizens and increasingly profitable enterprises.

In just the past few years, some of the nation’s most prominent brands have taken stands in line with their corporate beliefs but at odds with a significant portion of the American public (and an even higher share of elected officials). As a result, they have faced intense backlash from those who oppose either their positions or even the fact that businesses are “straying from their lane” to engage in social concerns. Think Disney and Delta Airlines.

Much like the divergent views expressed by Friedman and CED, companies are still wrestling with two competing opinions, according to Elizabeth Doty, who researches the social impact of business as director of the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at Michigan University’s Erb Institute for Sustainability in Business. 

“People tend to come at this … from two biases,” Doty explains. “One says the question is, ‘Should companies get in?’ And another says, ‘They’re too in and they need to get out.’”

But, according to Doty, there is a model for proper social engagement – one that requires transparency, accountability to commitments, and responsibility when it comes to impact on systems. “How are you affecting people’s civic participation, their confidence in the civic institutions and government,” she says. “We even go so far as to say, ‘How are you affecting an informed public?’”

And data shows that stakeholders – customers, employees, and investors – want to see more corporate engagement. The latest edition of the widely respected Edelman Trust Barometer found that 58% of people will support brands based on their beliefs and values, 60 percent will consider beliefs and values when determining where to work, and 80% will invest based on beliefs and values.

In fact, business is trusted more than the government, NGOs, or the media, according to Edelman. But, the research argues, while politicians and media are pushing divisions and disinformation, businesses and NGOs are being pressured to tackle social issues – beyond their current capabilities.

However, many companies have resisted taking a stance on some of the most divisive issues in recent years. According to a study by the Conference Board, racial equity is the only issue that has prompted more than half of companies to take a public stance since 2020.

While most companies have shied away from issues like LGBTQ+ rights, elections and voting, economic equality, and reproductive rights, the rise of stakeholder capitalism is sure to push those percentages higher in the coming years, possibly as soon as 2024 and the next presidential race.

This series will both explain the concept of corporate civic responsibility and offer resources that corporations can turn to when developing a CCR plan or responding to a public relations crisis related to its stance on civic issues. Profit-making, civic responsibility, and politics are sure to continue to intersect and, at times, cause division. With proper preparation and support, businesses can continue to thrive even as stakeholders evolve.

What Good Looks Like: A Common Ground Story

/by

Looking for signs of hope and progress in America’s political dialogue? This look back at some memorable moments with our inspiring podcast guests, panelists and audience members at our public forums offers a reminder that there is a way through our challenges – and that it’s our job to shine a light on that path by seeking light, not heat.

civic engagement

What is Corporate Civic Engagement, and Why Is It Important?

/by

This is the first in a three-part series on the rise of corporate civic engagement, an increasingly important component of good governance for an evolving business community and an evolving nation.

In 1971, the Committee for Economic Development issued a report titled, “Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations.” In what became known as a “social contract” between business and society, the nonprofit and nonpartisan business policy organization argued that the business community needed to take more responsibility for improving the environment and other societal issues.

“The discontinuity between what we have accomplished as producers and consumers and what we want in the way of a good society has engendered strong social pressures to close the gap – to improve the way the overall American system is working so that a better quality of life can be achieved for the entire citizenry within a well-functioning community,” the CED wrote.

That is quite different from economist Milton Friedman’s statement the previous year that “the sole purpose of a business is to generate profits for its shareholders.”

More than 50 years later, many corporations are still trying to find the right balance as they answer not only to shareholders but also customers, host communities, politicians and activists. But now, as the nation has become increasingly polarized, the answers are harder to develop because seemingly every issue, every option has – unfortunately – become another battleground in the partisan culture war that has engulfed the nation. 

But we at the Common Ground Committee have been studying this evolution and believe there are ways to be productive corporate citizens and increasingly profitable enterprises.

In just the past few years, some of the nation’s most prominent brands have taken stands in line with their corporate beliefs but at odds with a significant portion of the American public (and an even higher share of elected officials). As a result, they have faced intense backlash from those who oppose either their positions or even the fact that businesses are “straying from their lane” to engage in social concerns. Think Disney and Delta Airlines.

Much like the divergent views expressed by Friedman and CED, companies are still wrestling with two competing opinions, according to Elizabeth Doty, who researches the social impact of business as director of the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at Michigan University’s Erb Institute for Sustainability in Business. 

“People tend to come at this … from two biases,” Doty explains. “One says the question is, ‘Should companies get in?’ And another says, ‘They’re too in and they need to get out.’”

But, according to Doty, there is a model for proper social engagement – one that requires transparency, accountability to commitments and responsibility when it comes to impact on systems. “How are you affecting people’s civic participation, their confidence in the civic institutions and government,” she says. “We even go so far as to say, ‘How are you affecting an informed public?’”

And data shows that stakeholders – customers, employees, and investors – want to see more corporate engagement. The latest edition of the widely respected Edelman Trust Barometer found that 58% of people will support brands based on their beliefs and values, 60 percent will consider beliefs and values when determining where to work, and 80% will invest based on beliefs and values.

In fact, business is trusted more than the government, NGOs, or the media, according to Edelman. But, the research argues, while politicians and media are pushing divisions and disinformation, businesses and NGOs are being pressured to tackle social issues – beyond their current capabilities.

However, many companies have resisted taking a stance on some of the most divisive issues in recent years. According to a study by the Conference Board, racial equity is the only issue that has prompted more than half of companies to take a public stance since 2020.

While most companies have shied away from issues like LGBTQ+ rights, elections and voting, economic equality, and reproductive rights, the rise of stakeholder capitalism is sure to push those percentages higher in the coming years, possibly as soon as 2024 and the next presidential race.

This series will both explain the concept of corporate civic responsibility and offer resources that corporations can turn to when developing a CCR plan or responding to a public relations crisis related to its stance on civic issues. Profit-making, civic responsibility, and politics are sure to continue to intersect and, at times, cause division. With proper preparation and support, businesses can continue to thrive even as stakeholders evolve.

Capitol

McCarthy’s Win is Like Making Sausage

/by

As the 118th congress began, Republican Kevin McCarthy was elected House speaker in an after-midnight 15th ballot, navigating a week of tension and roadblocks within his own ranks. The news coverage of the drawn-out and, in some moments, the angry process highlighted the concessions forced upon McCarthy to gain support from his own party to win the Speakership. It raised questions about whether minority factions have too much power- and put a spotlight on the way the U.S. system works. Not only was it the subject of ridicule in some corners of the world but even some Americans were questioning whether our system works at all.

While we agree it was a difficult process, we disagree with the view expressed by so many who said that it demonstrated our government is dysfunctional. We believe it was a clear indicator that our government works as intended. The Founding Fathers designed the American government to reflect the broad interests and perspectives of US citizens. Our current government is narrowly divided, demonstrating what we believe is a more closely aligned public opinion than is commonly believed. At the same time, each party has vocal ideological factions that often dominate public discourse and the attention of the press. The narrowness of the majority means that some concessions needed to be made to bring the faction along with the majority.

Negotiation and compromise have always been a hallmark of our government. The importance of this process leads to opportunities to build a policy that takes into consideration the interests of differing ideologies, of a broader view. At the same time, it lessens the probability of extreme views becoming law.

But there is another, in our view, positive outcome from the Speaker election that we believe is now more likely – more bipartisanship. In a narrowly divided Congress where both parties have strong ideological and vocal factions, getting something done will require the pragmatists in both parties to work together rather than depend on their parties to deliver the votes. Some of the concessions Speaker McCarthy made – such as enabling floor debate on some bill amendments – could make it easier for representatives to find bipartisan support for bills they introduce.

There are those who make headlines in Congress for their caustic rhetoric or extreme views, and there are those who accomplish change by working together with colleagues across the aisle to pass legislation.

Much has changed in recent years that bears this out. Since the question of abortion has been remanded to the states, several very red states have had referenda that may have put limits on abortion rights – but did not eliminate them. By contrast, election laws passed in the wake of the 2020 presidential election and characterized as “Jim Crow 2.0” led to higher voter turnout in the 2022 election than in prior mid-term elections and the election of a Democratic senator in otherwise strongly red Georgia. That gave a majority to the Democrats in the Senate while Republicans took control of the house.

Does this show that we have a dysfunctional government? No. It shows our system works. You have to make concessions, and you need to cut deals with those you disagree with, and you can do that without compromising your fundamental principles. In fact, when bipartisanship happens you can get a better policy because broader interests make their way into the bill and the legislation is more likely to be long-lasting. That’s what the Founding Fathers wanted. As long as we have that kind of dynamic going, you’re not going to have too much power in the hands of too few. The way sausage is made can look ugly, but it follows a recipe, and….in the end, the sausage tastes pretty good.

the state of democracy event

Panel of Political Veterans: Midterm 2022 Democracy?

/by

What did the election tell us about the nation’s polarization problem? And what do the results say about the current state of our democracy?  

The people have spoken, and they are tired of the partisan fighting, agree James Carville and Reince Priebus. That was the takeaway shared by both panelists—political icon, Carville and former Republican National Committee Chairman Priebus—in a forum moderated by Bob Shrum, Director of the Dornsife Center at the University of Southern California.  

“The American people have glazed over the vitriol,” Priebus said, and they decided not to blame senators, representatives, and governors on the ballot for the partisanship and rhetoric of the party leaders.  

It’s always democracy in action on election day, Carville commented, whether the message delivered is a move toward centrism or a reaction against the status quo. “The people weighed in, they ran the show, and the politicians have to pay attention,” he said. “Maybe I’m an optimist. But I see a change in behavior, and I see it coming from the public.” 

Election reform, a point of contention, seems to be one of the things the majority of the public has decided to come together on. “There are already states that do mail-in ballots, and do it right,” said Priebus. “It’s time for Republicans to stop complaining about mail-in ballots and accept that it’s election month, not election day. We need to look at the states who do it right, and copy them.” 

Some of the strongest vitriol still surges through social media, and to some extent, the divisiveness in the mainstream media. There isn’t profit to be made in unity, the panelists agreed. There’s money in riling people up and agitating the click-bait culture of division that appeals to the basest instincts displayed on Tik Tok. “Eighty percent of people use the media like a drunk uses a lamppost,” Carville said. “For support, not illumination.” 

However, the degree to which this is or isn’t reflected in the media—and the usefulness of arguing over media bias—is less important than it used to be. Mainstream media doesn’t have the power it used to, Carville suggested, because the whole dynamic of media consumption has changed. Guests who appear on the major media outlets align with their views, and the viewing public knows that. “When people go on shows, they have three talking points, and they tend to agree with their host. People see through that. They want to see something real.” 

This time, in fact, there was no unrest and almost all the election results were accepted – even by those who lost. 

When it comes to putting aside partisanship to get things done, there’s cause for optimism, they agreed. There are several markers of progress that required bipartisan support. For instance, infrastructure and marriage equality, Carville suggested; Priebus pointed to the disclosure of secret money in politics, and the current agreement toward China. “For the most part, Republicans agree on our new hawkish view of China, and for the most part, Democrats agree,” he said. 

And both panelists agreed on the importance of supporting the next generation of candidates — a wealth of talent and energy just sitting in wait on the bench. Youth is also the primary source of optimism for both panelists. Take, for example, the student groups from both Texas A&M and USC that were engaged spectators of the panel event.  

“I think of all the schools with students watching events like tonight’s panel, all over the country,” said Carville. “And I just want to tell you all, this is a fun business – don’t believe that it’s a God-awful business and not a place for nice people. Pitch in and get involved, and we’ll all be ok!”  

common ground logo

Our Story: Bringing light, not heat, to public discourse.

/by

The truth is, most of us want common-ground solutions.

Two-thirds of Americans are fed up with the partisan gamesmanship that has resulted in a dysfunctional government. Because stories of political battles draw more readers than stories of political compromise, we tend to think everyone wants their side to “win” at any cost.

But that just isn’t true.

In fact, two-thirds of Americans – regardless of ideology – want to see their allies listen to the other side and compromise to achieve solutions in which we all win, not just the political majority.

In other words, Americans want solutions that create common ground.

Our mission

CGC inspires and motivates the public to find common ground and reduce incivility and polarization for a stronger nation. We do this by demonstrating how influential people of opposing views can unexpectedly find agreement without compromising core values. We provide innovative content and tools that empower individuals and consequently, their political leaders to do the same.

How it all started

Often, our friendships change and evolve as we grow, attend college, switch jobs, and move to new communities. But some friendships persist. Such is the case with Bruce Bond and Erik Olsen, childhood friends who grew tighter during their school years and remained close as they built families and careers.

While they pursued divergent careers (Erik in financial services and Bruce in information technology), they would often spend time discussing a shared concern: the state of politics in America. When their families vacationed together in August 2009, they decided to translate those concerns into action. They believed there had been a significant shift in tone in the country, particularly since President Barack Obama’s election the prior year, and they wanted to do something about it.

That was the beginning of the Common Ground Committee.

The purpose was simple: To find opportunities to advance policies for the good of the nation by building on a foundation accepted, if not promoted, by both Republicans and Democrats.

In their spare time, Bruce and Erik set up a board of directors and began planning their first event, which would be held in February 2010 and feature Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) in a talk titled, “Finding Common Ground on the Government’s Role in the Nation’s Economy.” That event served as a springboard for growth, partnership, and change.

The Common Ground Committee began as purely an event-driven nonprofit for its first years, usually convening one or two events per year. Speakers have included a pair of former secretaries of state (Condoleezza Rice and John Kerry), former members of Congress, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, national media figures, and advisors to presidents. In every case, the guests worked to advance the mission by finding common ground on key policy issues, including foreign relations, the racial divide, taxes, and much more.

Early on in the process, the Common Ground Committee developed a key partnership with the Christian Science Monitor and its Editor John Yemma. Now retired as editor but still an influential columnist, John has been an outstanding event moderator and the Monitor, who continues to provide moderators for CGC events, remains an important ally in the search for common ground.

What we’re doing now

Having established the Common Ground Committee as an influential player in the growing movement to reduce polarization and improve the American political system, Bruce and Erik raised enough financial support to devote themselves full-time to the mission by 2018.

And with the new funding came new people and new initiatives. The Common Ground Committee has expanded its staff and now produces a podcast and the influential Common Ground Scorecard, a unique tool to help voters determine which candidates for national office truly want to work across the aisle for the betterment of the nation.

Our vision

We envision a nation no longer encumbered by the anger and polarization that prevents us from moving forward on issues that matter.

How do we find common ground?

The Common Ground Committee has three goals:

  1. Give hope and inspiration that we, as a nation, can work together to make progress on important issues. Those events and podcasts double as opportunities to not only study the issues but also to look for common ground and to demonstrate that, yes, it’s possible to work across partisan lines on behalf of our fellow Americans.
  2. Educate people on the issues. This is where we started and remains the core of what we do – bringing together, in person (through live events) and virtually (with podcasts) to learn how we can advance critical issues such as the economy, gun violence, health care, and more.
  3. Help citizens hold elected officials accountable. The next step in the Common Ground Committee’s evolution is moving beyond education and inspiration to action. Through our Common Ground Scorecard, voters can determine which candidates are serious about working across party lines on behalf of their constituents– and which put party over country.

If you’re interested in learning more about Bruce and Erik and how you can get involved be sure to check out upcoming events and explore the topics we cover.

unify america

How to Have Your Own Common Ground Experience with Our Partner Unify America

/by

Put two strangers in a virtual meeting talking about some of the key issues of our time and it could go any number of ways. 

Now imagine putting two strangers in the conversation who are expressly chosen because they vote differently than you. 

Does the prospect of this make your heart race? If so, it’s likely not just because of the social awkwardness of talking to a complete stranger at length about substantive, difficult things. 

These days, the thought of being paired for an hour with someone who’s different than you — values, experiences, worldview, social issues, politics — is fraught with concern, and the expectation is that it would be unpleasant. What might they say? How will you respond? Will someone get angry? 

However, what if they discover that they share a lot of the same goals for the country? And that they actually enjoy meeting each other? What if instead of wondering, “How are we going to talk for a whole hour?” you end up talking for three hours? This has happened. 

The group Unify America created this, with its Unify Challenge: matching people for a one-on-one chat with another American who might vote differently than you or is different in any number of significant ways. The goals are to break biases, switch up the information sources we feed on daily, and practice really listening. 

People sign up for any number of reasons: a workplace or school initiative; a desire to understand people who think and feel differently; an interest in what drives the current political and social climate; or perhaps a curiosity about what is “different from yourself” looks and sounds like on a personal level. 

When you register, you’re asked a number of questions about your views, are assigned a date and time and are given a log in for a video chat. Once you begin, you watch and wait while an algorithm pairs you with your conversation mate. And then their image appears on video, along with a loose script of innocuous questions to start your discussion. Where did you grow up? And something along the lines of, “How do you think your upbringing and location led to the person you are today?” Which leads eventually to, “How strongly do you feel that abortion should be decided by a unified law encompassing the country, and why?”

Here’s what tends to happen: The designers of the challenge guessed rightly that once we get to know someone, spending time in conversation about what shapes the forces in their world, we are more likely to respond with civility and really consider their point of view. Something that can’t happen on social media, or in most news stories or even opinion pieces published in the media. A person who believes strongly in, say, gun control, and that the overall moral lifesaving good of controlling who can have what might be left thoughtfully stumped when the other says they feel the same way about curtailing abortion rights. 

Unify America was launched in January 2020 to reduce contempt, teach Americans to work together, and build a diverse community to find unique solutions and solve our biggest problems.

It seems like a small thing, this microcosm of understanding and goodwill. But what if it’s not? What if thousands of small conversations like these can play a small part in reducing the anger that’s roiling our country? If so, it’s not just a small gesture between two people, a drop in the bucket. It’s an act of national repair.