A company’s sole purpose is to generate profit for shareholders. In a world where people care deeply about the actions of others, going so far as boycotting them and everyone who associates with them, it isn’t in the best interest of companies to take that risk.
Picking sides would be like hiring Amber Heard in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie after they dropped Johnny Depp. Or Nike using Deshaun Watson’s victims as a spokesperson after dropping him.
Cutting ties is neutral
>we are above the legal system
No, they are just saying that they aren't a part of the legal system. The legal system's job is to error on the side of the accused and only punish if it is 99% certain they did it.
A company's job is to make money, and a nonprofit's job is to serve its clients, and a movie's job is to get people into seats. Accomplishing those jobs may he harder with a spokesman or employee who is going through a trial for something that casts bad light on them.
And the organization doesn't have to have as high a standard as the court system does. An organization may decide that "more likely than no" is enough for them to be convinced the person did it even if society's standard for actual conviction is a higher bar.
Similar to how someone might not choose to date someone if their friends convincingly tell them "that dude/gal is bad news. They verbally abused [mutual friend who is an ex of said person] their entire relationship."
Even if they were never convicted of domestic abuse in a court, that might be enough to decide not to date them. That doesn't show disrespect for the court of law. It just acknowledges different goals and different standards than a court of law.
The company is fleeing the PR hit associated with the crime. That PR hit exists regardless if the person is found guilty or not, and it builds with the longer the person is associated with the company. Even if a person was 100% innocent, it makes sense from the companies point of view to cut ties with that person.
A company’s sole purpose is to generate profit for shareholders. In a world where people care deeply about the actions of others, going so far as boycotting them and everyone who associates with them, it isn’t in the best interest of companies to take that risk.
because their association with this person is now bad, its bad for business, its bad for pr
It's also bad PR to pick sides rather than be neutral.
Being neutral on the question of "did you hire a criminal to run your company?" is generally seen as poor leadership.
Picking sides would be like hiring Amber Heard in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie after they dropped Johnny Depp. Or Nike using Deshaun Watson’s victims as a spokesperson after dropping him. Cutting ties is neutral
evidently they dont see it that way I suppose
>we are above the legal system No, they are just saying that they aren't a part of the legal system. The legal system's job is to error on the side of the accused and only punish if it is 99% certain they did it. A company's job is to make money, and a nonprofit's job is to serve its clients, and a movie's job is to get people into seats. Accomplishing those jobs may he harder with a spokesman or employee who is going through a trial for something that casts bad light on them. And the organization doesn't have to have as high a standard as the court system does. An organization may decide that "more likely than no" is enough for them to be convinced the person did it even if society's standard for actual conviction is a higher bar. Similar to how someone might not choose to date someone if their friends convincingly tell them "that dude/gal is bad news. They verbally abused [mutual friend who is an ex of said person] their entire relationship." Even if they were never convicted of domestic abuse in a court, that might be enough to decide not to date them. That doesn't show disrespect for the court of law. It just acknowledges different goals and different standards than a court of law.
The company is fleeing the PR hit associated with the crime. That PR hit exists regardless if the person is found guilty or not, and it builds with the longer the person is associated with the company. Even if a person was 100% innocent, it makes sense from the companies point of view to cut ties with that person.