As in the case of Nike. As we read above, Barack Obama said that Colin Kaepernick has the right to protest. However, Donald Trump blamed Colin. Therefore, if Nike is supporting Colin and taking a political stand, it is surely in ethical dilemma.
Another example here can be of Starbucks:
International coffee franchise Starbucks, made headlines this January when CEO Howard Schultz, vowed to hire 10,000 refugees worldwide in response to US President's Trump's travel ban. Immediately customers took to social media to voice both their concerns and support. In fact, the hashtag #BoycottStarbucks quickly became a trending topic.
We can clearly see huge spikes from January 31st - February 1st, where interactions surrounding the refugee conversation reached it's highest peak. The Starbucks Tweet battle lead to an increase in Follower Growth by 34x in just one day. They also received 7x more Average Interactions per Tweet and 9x more Mentions.
While Starbucks stayed quiet about the situation on Facebook, they went bold on Twitter. This is likely because the conversation first sprouted on Twitter due to the "boycott" hashtag, and naturally Starbucks allocated their resources to take a stance on the platform where the social media action was taking place. The Tweet featured above was Starbucks' second highest performing, earning more than 10,000 Likes and nearly 3,000 Retweets. The photo is plain - but symbolic, using the iconic Starbucks apron ties to form a heart. The description text drives it home with Starbucks standing up for their beliefs.
As we can read above, Starbucks took a political stand and they were in a case of ethical dilemma.
Reference:
Jordan Lukes (2017, March 3). The Ethical Dilemma: Should companies take sides? Retrieved from:
https://www.socialbakers.com/blog/2661-the-ethical-dilemma-should-companies-take-sides
Mirindal
commentwizthispeerreview.docx
0
