 |
|
|
|||||
For weeks, corporate leaders across the country largely stayed silent as immigration officers descended on the city of Minneapolis, eventually killing two civilians. In recent days, however, CEOs and prominent tech figures have slowly raised their voices in protestthough many of them have been careful not to mention President Trump by name or directly criticize ICE agents. Over 60 CEOs from Minnesota-based companiesincluding the likes of Target and 3Mcalled for an immediate deescalation of tensions in a letter on January 25. In leaked comments, tech leaders like Sam Altman and Tim Cook claimed to have spoken to Trump, while Altman noted that whats happening with ICE is going too far. In a recent editorial in the San Francisco Standard, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman called on fellow tech executives to speak out against the Trump administration rather than remaining neutral. Januarys tragic events in Minneapolis should end that posture, he wrote. We leaders in tech and business have powereconomic, social, platform powerand sitting on that power right now is not good business. Many of the statements from CEOs have faced criticism for not being forceful enough, and tech workers have urged their employers to use their influence to put pressure on the White House. Still, any kind of public comment from corporate leaders represents a shift from the defensive crouch many of them have taken since Trump took office, due to fears that they would be targeted by the administration. Fast Company spoke to Ike Silver, a marketing professor at the USC Marshall School of Business, about what to make of business leaders wading into this issueand why even a muted corporate response indicates the tides may be turning across corporate America. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Fast Company: How would you characterize the corporate activism weve seen from companies under the Trump administration? Ike Silver: For a long time, the general status quo marketing strategy advice was: Avoid political issues. Over the course of the last 20 years or so, that landscape has shifted such that consumers demand to know more about where companies stand. People can question businesses, and that sort of thing can go viral. But there have been these shifting market-based incentives for companies to get involvedat least up until November 2024. At that point, there was a shift, and I would attribute that shift to two things: One is that the Trump administration has been very vocal and active, both in signaling that it would not tolerate companies that took a political stance it did not agree with, but also actually going through with various executive actions to make life for businesses who speak out more difficult in various ways. We’ve seen things as simple as Trump getting on Truth Social and just trashing a company and calling on his followers to boycott, all the way to threats to use the FCC in various ways to block corporate actions. So to my eye, what we’re seeing from business leaders is keeping their fiduciary commitments in mind and being more reticent to respond to consumer demands out of fear of being targeted by the current administration. That kind of targeting can have very real economic costs for companies. The other thing that’s worth mentioning is that Trumps election, I think, signaled a shift in the perceptions of the national moodit wouldn’t surprise me at all if business leaders looked at Trump’s election and thought, well, the tides are moving against some of these liberal causes that we’ve previously taken sides on. So it’s not just threats from the administration, but it’s also a perception that maybe there is less consumer appetite for companies to take sides. There is some research suggesting that, as a general rule, conservatives are a bit less enthusiastic about companies taking political sides, even their side. Liberals tend to demand that companies get involved to a greater extent. Weve now seen a number of CEOs and business leaders speak out about whats happening in Minnesota, though some of them have faced criticism for being too neutral. Is this a shift companies have made since Trump took office? I think the devastating carnage that we’re seeing out of Minneapolis has spurred some CEOs to speak out. There are CEOs of AI companies coming out and saying, I tend to be very moderate, but what I’m seeing is very disturbing to me. And every little statement of that sort kind of adds up and creates a sense that companies are a bit more willing than they’ve been to speak out. Because there are more doing itand they’re not immediately facing direct punishment from the governmentthat creates even more safety. Why do you think were seeing corporate leaders comment at all on this issue, given the political environment? Public opinion on this issue is much clearer. A big part of what companies do when they decide whether or not to get involved in these issues is thinking about: What percentage of my target market is going to align with what I’m saying, and what percentage of my target market is going to oppose what I’m saying? The combination of outcry on social media, days of activism across the country, the visibility of the protests, the unpopularity of ICE in the wake of some of the videos that we’ve seen coming out of Minneapolisall of those factors combine to give business leaders the sense that the consumer market will be amenable to them getting involved in this kind of issue. This isn’t going to be Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney, where half the people respond positively, but half the people respond super negatively. This is the kind of issue where there is a bit more national consensus, at least insofar as people are concerned about the specific tactics that ICE is using for enforcement. It is true that the executive branch is quite powerful, but they still have to admonish companies one by one for this kind of action. If thousands of CEOs are speaking out, the likelihood that any one will be punished is lower. If one actor pokes their head up and says something, then the government can kind of squash that. But it’s much harder to do that when it feels more like the whole business community is taking a stand. Do you think companies feel a moral imperative to speak out about ICEs actionsthat they’re treating this any differently than other political issues? A question that is really hard to answer from the outside is whether any given business leader is speakig out because of their own conscience or because of market forces. My personal perspective is that business leaders typically want to do both. When opinion polling clearly shows that people are against what ICE is doing, CEOs who might already have had reservations about the Trump administration’s actions, but who might have felt it would be costly for them to speak out, now have cover to come forward and make a business case for the company taking a stand in some way. You can’t go to your stakeholders and shareholders and say, The government is against us, and it’s not clear if consumers want us to, but my conscience says we have to speak out on this thing at any cost. But if you are the kind of CEO who wants to speak your mind, who wants to be able to behave in line with your moral compass, then the fact that the national environment seems to be amenable to that at the moment, can provide cover. That’s not to say that every business leader is doing this for conscience reasons, but given that there are still salient costs and that many CEOs tend to be risk averse at baseline, I think there’s probably a lot of speaking conscience going on right now. How much value is there in corporate leaders speaking out later, once they feel as though the environment is more amenable to it? As more companies come forward, consumers become aware that it’s reasonable to expect companies to come forward, and they start to penalize companies that don’t. The other aspect of this is that if you are late to the party, you’re typically seen as less authentic in your support. I happen to think that we want to have business environments in which companies are encouraged to come forwardthat even if you’re late to the party, it’s better that you sort of come forward and stand up for your morals than not. But there’s a consumer skepticism that goes with that. I’m working on a paper that basically argues that for any social purpose activity to go well, the company needs to choose a cause that consumers are aligned with, and they need to communicate an authentic commitment to it. In 2020, there was a lot of public pressure on companies to speak out after George Floyds murder. Many of them made bold commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion and then quietly divested from that work, as we have seen more recently. Do you think this moment is different? I don’t think that it is reasonable to expect that companies will devote all of their resources to fighting every political battle consistently forever. I think what’s important is for consumers who care about issues to help create an environment in which companies are incentivized to get involvedso consistently rewarding companies who do things in line with our values, and trying to move away from spending our money with companies who do things that contravene our values. Were obviously in an employers market right now. Do companies care as much right now about demands from their workforce to speak out on political issues? Companies are somewhat less concerned about this now, in an environment in which employees have fewer outside options. That also relates to the general health of the economy and the rise of AI. There are a number of companies who may legitimately be thinking, if some folks leave because of this, we won’t show up on the cover of The Wall Street Journal over layoffs. As a general rule, it’s harder for employees to leave than it is for customers to leave, so I tend to think that companies are a bit more responsive to the consumer landscape than to the employee landscape. That said, there are some companies who position themselves as being sort of explicitly moral, and those kinds of companies attract people who care about that a lot as employees. I’m thinking about Patagonia, or Ben and Jerry’s, or National Geographic. It also matters a lot what the political makeup of the employee base is. If you’re a large multinational company and you have employees on either side, maybe you’re thinking, our involvement will galvanize some but alienate others, so let’s just stay out of iteven if there are swaths of employees asking us to speak out. In this particular case, the public opinion data suggests that people are quite angry, so companies are in this position to be able to satisfy a lot of different stakeholders. This week, the Trump administration pulled hundreds of ICE officers out of Minnesota. Do you think the statements from corporate leaders had any bearing on that decision? And do you expect to see more companies speak out now? Although the administration is quite powerful, they are not at all immune from the costs of contravening public sentiment. The midterms are coming. Trump will not be in power forever. If you look at senators and Congress people from more moderate districts, they are speaking out. One thing that’s interesting is that in many cases, these companies are speaking out in the absence of any particular boycotts or consumer pressure on their own brand. There are definitely signals that there is broad consumer sentiment in favor of taking a stand against ICE. But it’s not as if many of these companies speaking out are themselves facing targeted, economically costly boycottswhich I think speaks in favor of the idea that business leaders do care about this issue. Business leaders are people, too. They also don’t like seeing Americans gunned down in the streets. The less you think that a company is in the public eye and expected to speak out about this thing, the more you should kind of assume that when they do speak out, they’re doing it for some moral reasons. Unfortunately, we can’t put a secret camera in these boardrooms that would tell us definitively why companies are doing this. But I generally think it’s a mix of these things. There are market forces, and then there’s also the moral compasses of these CEOswhich are sometimes faulty, but not non-existent.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes fell sharply in January as higher home prices and possibly harsh winter weather kept many prospective homebuyers on the sidelines despite easing mortgage rates. Existing home sales sank 8.4% last month from December to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.91 million units, the National Association of Realtors said Thursday. Thats the biggest monthly decline in nearly four years and the slowest annualized sales pace in more than two years. Sales fell 4.4% compared with January last year. The latest sales figure fell short of the 4.105 million pace economists were expecting, according to FactSet. The decrease in sales is disappointing,” said Lawrence Yun, NARs chief economist. “The below-normal temperatures and above-normal precipitation this January make it harder than usual to assess the underlying driver of the decrease and determine if this months numbers are an aberration. Home sales slowed sharply across the Northeast, Midwest, South and West. But sales had their biggest annual and monthly drop in the West, which wasn’t as affected by last month’s winter storm as the other regions of the country. Plus, theres usually a month or two lag between a contract signing and when the sale is finalized, so many of January’s sales reflect contracts signed late last year. Despite the sharp drop in sales, home prices continued to climb last month. The national median sales price increased 0.9% in January from a year earlier to $396,800. Home prices have risen on an annual basis for 31 months in a row. The U.S. housing market has been in a sales slump dating back to 2022, when mortgage rates began to climb from pandemic-era lows. The combination of higher mortgage rates, years of skyrocketing home prices and a chronic shortage of homes nationally following more than a decade of below-average home construction have left many aspiring homeowners priced out of the market. Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes remained stuck last year at 30-year lows. Sales have been hovering close to a 4-million annual pace now going back to 2023. Thats well short of the 5.2-million annual pace thats historically been the norm. Still, mortgage rates have been trending lower for months, which helped give home sales a boost in December and brightened the outlook for the upcoming spring home-buying season at least for home shoppers who can afford to buy at current rates. Many of the homes purchased last month likely went under contract in November and December, when mortgage rates eased to their lowest levels of the year. The average rate on a 30-year mortgage briefly dropped last month to 6.06%, the lowest level since September 2022, according to mortgage buyer Freddie Mac. It has since inched higher, remaining this week at just above 6%, but close to a percentage point lower than a year ago. Even so, affordability remains a challenge for many aspiring homeowners, especially first-time buyers who dont have equity from an existing home to put toward a new home purchase. They accounted for 31% of homes sales last month. Historically, they made up 40% of home sales. Today we have minimal foreclosures, housing wealth continues to build out, it’s just that renters who want to become homeowners are finding difficulty, Yun said. Uncertainty over the job market is also likely keeping many would-be buyers on the sidelines. While the economy has been registering solid growth, the labor market has been sluggish for months. U.S. job openings fell in December to the lowest level in more than five years. And while hiring by U.S. employers was surprisingly strong in January, government revisions reduced the number of jobs created last year to the weakest total since 2020, when the pandemic began. The sales slowdown means more homes are staying on the market longer. There were 1.22 million unsold homes at the end of January, down 0.8% from December and up 3.4% from January last year, NAR said. Thats still well short of the roughly 2 million homes for sale that was typical before the COVID-19 pandemic. Januarys month-end inventory translates to a 3.7-month supply at the current sales pace. Traditionally, a 5- to 6-month supply is considered a balanced market between buyers and sellers. More homes traditionally go on the market ahead of the spring home-buying season, which could give prospective buyers a wider selection. Buyers will find a more favorable market as we head into spring, said Lisa Sturtevant, chief economist at Bright MLS. More inventory, lower rates and slower price growth will give buyers more room for negotiation. Alex Veiga, AP business writer
Category:
E-Commerce
In late 2025, Interpol coordinated a global operation across 134 nations, seizing roughly 30,000 live animals, confiscating illegal plant and timber products, and identifying about 1,100 suspected wildlife traffickers for national police to investigate. Wildlife trafficking is one of the most lucrative illicit industries worldwide. It nets between US$7 billion and $23 billion per year, according to the Global Environment Facility, a group of nearly 200 nations as well as businesses and nonprofits that fund environmental improvement and protection projects. People buy and sell a wide range of items, including live animals, plant powders and oils, ivory carvings, and musical instruments. Historically, enforcement has been largely reactive. There is so much global trade that fewer than 1 in 10 international cargo shipments of any kind are physically inspected. Traffickers also avoid detection by using false or generic names instead of proper species identification, employing coded language in online listings, rerouting shipments, and shifting to different messaging platforms when enforcement pressure increases. Emerging digital tools are helping authorities link online monitoring, legal reference tools, and on-the-ground investigations. As a researcher at the University of Florida working at the intersection of conservation science and applied technology, I observed these advancements firsthand at an international meeting of governments and partner organizations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, often known by its acronym, CITES. This treatythe cornerstone for international regulation of trade in endangered plants and animalsis enforced by national customs and wildlife agencies. AI and digital tools for inspection A huge challenge for officials seeking to prevent wildlife trafficking is knowing where to lookand then figuring out what theyve found. Cargo screening: Advanced X-ray screeners, similar to those used in airport security but designed for cargo, are being paired with software that helps spot unusual shapes or materials inside packages. Trials conducted at major ports and mail processing centers in Australia have detected animals concealed in various kinds of shipments. The software does not identify species but highlights anomalies, helping inspectors decide which packages deserve closer inspection. Assisted identification: A software program supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences uses artificial intelligence to help identify the species of animals or animal parts found in shipments. Inspectors can use chatbot-style interfaces to describe what they have found to a system trained on technical documents with detailed descriptions of a wide range of species. This type of work can help inspectors tell the difference between closely related species whose legal protections differ. For example, trade of African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is strictly regulated. There are different, often less stringent protections for similar-looking species, such as the Timneh parrot (Psittacus timneh) and the brown-necked parrot (Poicephalus fuscicollis). Portable DNA testing: Enforcement efforts dont always happen in offices and labs. One company aims to provide small, handheld kits that can detect up to five species in about 20 or 30 minutes without needing traditional lab equipment. The kits show their results on a simple strip that changes color when the DNA of a particular species appears in a sample. Conceptually, its similar to a pregnancy test, which changes color when a hormone is detected. Timber identification: Handheld scanners use software to quickly identify timber species by examining the internal cellular structure of the wood. This can help to distinguish protected hardwoods from legal alternatives in regions where illegal logging is widespread, such as South America, Southeast Asia and Africa. Background research and risk profiling Even before wildlife-related items appear at national borders, there can be signs of illegal trafficking that technology can help identify. Monitoring online trade: Large volumes of wildlife trafficking now occur through online transactions. To avoid detection, sellers often use vague descriptions or coded language, such as listings that omit species names entirely or use emojis instead of words. Others hide key details in images or brief text that say little about what is being sold, even just showing a photo with no description. Anti-trafficking organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund collaborate with tech companies to scan online listings using AI and content moderation tools. Between 2018 and 2023, the tech companies blocked or removed more than 23 million listings and accounts related to protected species, including live reptiles, birds, and primates, and elephant products. Early warnings from paperwork: Shipping documents often provide early warning signs of illegal trade. Wildlife enforcement officers, transport sector personnel, government tax officers, and others are using new software tools to analyze millions of manifests and permits, looking for species names that arent usually traded on particular routes; shipments that are unusually heavy or underpriced; and complex routing through multiple transit countries. Instead of inspecting shipments at random, these systems help enforcement agencies identify the consignments most likely to contain illegal materials. Navigating wildlife trade laws: Enforcement officers have to navigate vast legal complexity. New tools seek to compile laws from multiple countries, helping inspectors understand regulations across export, transit, and destination nations. Using trade data to identify other species to monitor: Researchers at the University of Oxford have developed a method that uses wildlife trade records to identify thousands of highly vulnerable endangered species that could benefit from stricter international trade protections and stronger law enforcement to limit exploitation. Taken together, these devices and systems extendbut do not replacehuman expertise. They help officers decide which shipments or sites to focus on, identify what they find, and share information internationally. No single technology will end wildlife trafficking, but these digital tools can enable a shift from reactive enforcement toward proactive, coordinated action, helping authorities keep pace with adaptive criminal networks. Eve Bohnett is an assistant research scholar at the Center for Landscape Conservation Planning at the University of Florida. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||