Education, influence, information: does the public want a company to illustrate how the world should ideally look? Nike had to learn that its (understandable) commitment to Colin Kaepernick was appreciated by part of the public, while another part vehemently rejected it. On the sales front, the result was clear: Nike lost market share. The fact is that to date there is no scientific study that determines the proportion of people who perceive political influence by australia rcs data companies through advertising as positive and, above all, who base their purchases on it. Isn't it presumptuous that companies consider themselves competent and knowledgeable enough to take ethical positions? Just as anyone can nowadays pose as a global economics expert, terrorism specialist, virologist or climate scientist, companies postulate attitudes as sensitive instructions. The problem with attitudes, however, is that they are essentially "opinions". Opinions are not facts - presenting them as guidelines is questionable and apparently annoying for some people. The focus on one's own performance and competence is becoming increasingly less important - perhaps because there are none left?
The more comprehensive the world-saving agenda, the more unscrupulous the day-to-day business
A few years ago, it was enough for a company to do such good work that employees could be paid properly. That was living responsibility. Today, the whole world has to do the job. Living in generalizations ("The world...") has always been easier than confronting reality ("The employee Mr. Müller wants more money..."). A supposed general attitude conceals the fact that the economic concepts of numerous ethical companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon at the lower levels of the value chain are based on abolishing achievements of the pre-digital era. Attitude becomes an attitude.