The First Drop: The Responsibilities Of Trust

This probably won’t be the first time we discuss the fact that corporate leaders are more widely trusted than political leaders, nor will this be the first time you’ve read about it in the news. It’s totally reasonable, in fact, to believe that you’re sick of having this responsibility thrust upon you.

Let me tell you, as a member of one of the discredited classes — journalists — it’s amazing to me that the information coming out of some of the companies I’ve reported on over the years has moved from GRAS to Gospel. I hope that the food and beverage industry feels fit to rise to the occasion.

Still, there are a number of companies out there that have taken their current events classes pretty seriously and are reacting to the sight of America’s version of the Joker unleashing hordes of zealots to attack the certification of the election results.

Many food and beverage corporations have even taken the step of pulling out of the constant cycle of election financing, at least for the time being. While we’re all for taking pause of the legalized purchase of political favoritism, we’d be less skeptical if it didn’t come after an election cycle. There’s plenty of time to buy support from even the most odious legislators.

We’re not arguing with the impulse behind it. We’re all so far down the river of uncertainty that all we can do is read the room and react; perhaps that’s why the long-term plans and long careers of corporate leaders seem to be more reassuring than the level of opportunism and rigidity that seems to govern nearly any political issue.

So let’s conduct a thought exercise. What are the responsibilities of food and beverage companies, if they’re going to be the trust leaders? What are their moral and service obligations? Who are their core constituents?

We can look to other professions and iconic companies to think about what has worked for them. Certainly, the most basic standard is “Do No Harm.” That’s the first building block of the Hippocratic Oath, and with all this talk of food as medicine notwithstanding, one can look at this from either a basic (don’t actively poison people with your products) or a closely read (don’t sell products that undermine human health or destroy the environment) standpoint.

But that’s just when you look at consumers as a constituent. How are you treating your workers? Your manufacturing and supply chain partners? Are you operating in a way that’s at least mutually beneficial for them? If there are things you’re working on, are you ready to be transparent?

When you look at what it means to be an honest company, the notion of ethical leadership comes up repeatedly; on a basic level the idea of ethical behavior is understanding the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do the right thing. Ethics in business can be tough to work through — consider the close reading of “Do No Harm” versus the basic one.

What about thinking about business leadership through the lens of the recent poll? In other words, what are the duties of business leaders as, well, leaders, particularly as our nation turns its weary eyes toward them?

I would argue that real scrutiny and transparency is a value that many haven’t yet found. Certainly, rolling back spending on campaigns for officeholders is a good start, but as a recent Boston Globe column by political commentators Michael Porter and Bruce Freed points out, a great deal of that spending goes not to the candidates themselves, but to the influential corporate and trade associations that lobby politicians and attempt to funnel legislation that further their own ends — often by supporting many of the same candidates the companies say they will no longer support.

That’s a big loophole for the companies and one they should look to close right away if they want to emerge clean.

While that’s a big piece of corporate strategy to work through, trust is hard to gain. It takes more than a black square on Instagram. It takes internal scrutiny and constant care, something that both Kroger and Amazon Smile learned the hard way last month when it was revealed that one of the charities they had approved for their respective customer donation programs was the Indiana Oath Keepers, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a domestic terrorist group — and which is now under investigation by the FBI in the wake of the Capitol riots, according to various news reports.

Come to think of it, after the past few months, maybe just figuring out all the ways to Do No Harm is enough.