In my last post I noted that corporate America has become more activist in recent years, but on the left, not the right. Although still decried by leftists as evil capitalists, many large firms have taken social positions consistent with their detractors.
There are a number of possible explanations for this. One is that supporting a progressive social agenda can keep a large, visible firm off the boycott list. The problem, of course, is that promoting a leftist agenda can lead to boycotts from the right. Such is the case with Target.
The company posted the following on its website on April 16:
We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest, and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination. In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.
Target has a right to take a stand on any side of this issue. Likewise, investors or customers who find this objectionable can take their funds elsewhere. Target has likely gained and lost business for its stance, but the ongoing boycott promoted by the American Family Association suggests that it went too far this time, and the response is hurting business.
Most Americans are tolerant of different views and lifestyles as long as theirs are protected as well. Transgender individuals have been entering bathrooms inconsistent with their biological sex for some time without an uproar. But the problem is one of a statute’s unintended consequences. Codifying anyone’s right to enter any restroom at will opens the door far beyond the transgender person who intends no harm. Charlotte’s attempt to enshrine this right is what prompted HB2 in North Carolina. At the corporate level, Target’s progressive directive opens the door to sexual predators and has prompted a boycott.
A boycott is a tool for keeping firms in line with stakeholder expectations, but most aren’t effective and lack staying power unless the numbers are high and the issue at hand is important. I usually give companies the benefit of the doubt on most issues, but I’m not shopping at Target until it takes a more reasonable stance. I see two possible long-term solutions: (1) A third, gender-neutral facility akin to the “family bathrooms” with baby changing facilities available in some locations, or (2) individual private facilities for everyone. Either option would require some remodeling. If Target feels so strongly on this issue, perhaps the company could pony up the modest funds to redesign restrooms in its own stores to accommodate everyone in a way that does not invite trouble.
The ongoing Target case underscores the reality that businesses cannot always escape social issues. Sooner or later they must stand for something, and inviting opposition by actively taking a stand can come at a cost. The conventional wisdom today is that siding with progressives is the wise alternative because it presents the company as “in touch” with a changing society and its demands for a “more caring” approach to business. Besides, those on the left seem more inclined than those on the right to fight back. This assumption is probably correct, but Target is discovering some new economic boundaries with this issue.
Target is getting what is deserves. Just run your business and leave your social agenda out of it.
Target has always been a far left company. This time they stepped too far.
Doesn’t matter now…DOJ is ordering NC to drop HB2, so the Target model will be the law of the land.
Aren’t there more urgent issues in this country that need to be taken care off other than who go to which bathroom? The whole idea of this law is insane.
not so fast Aliza– NC HB2 was passed in response to Charlotte’s law permitting anyone to use any bathroom they choose. Yes, the law says the bathroom should correspond with their gender identity, but anyone can claim any gender identity at any time. Everyone was getting along until Charlotte passed its own law. I agree with Parnell that the the end solution is a third bathroom or private bathrooms, but you can’t blame NC for passing the law. Charlotte started the fray. As for Target, what happens when a woman claims to be violated in the bathroom by a guy who says he has a female identify. How do you prosecute this case? You can’t put cameras in the bathrooms, so Target will get sued and nobody will be able to sort it out.
I agree with Randy. Allowing unrestricted choice for entry to public bathroom is irresponsible and invites massive trouble. Target will get what it deserves.