While many will cheer Telstra’s latest backdown as a big victory, should we be more skeptical?
Originally published in SBS Sexuality, 19 April, 2016.
Yesterday, telecommunications giant Telstra performed quite the gymnastic feat by executing a double backflip on their position on marriage equality and confusing everyone in the meantime. Succumbing to increasing community pressure, Telstra CEO Andrew Penn released a statement, saying:
“Telstra supports marriage equality. Last week we advised that out of respect for the individual our view had been that we would not add further to the debate on marriage equality ahead of a plebiscite or parliamentary debate. It is clear that rather than Telstra stepping back we should in fact step forward and support our view for marriage equality and so that is what we will do.”
This ends what has been an extremely bizarre week for the company. On Wednesday, Telstra found itself the centre of a debate about diversity and corporate responsibility after it was reported they’d pulled their support for a public marriage equality campaign following pressure from the Catholic Church. The company then faced boycotts from marriage advocates, landing itself in the position of trying to balance the needs of both its pro and anti-equality customers and staff.
While many will cheer Telstra’s latest backdown as a big victory, I am far more skeptical. I see it just like I saw their first move — a company doing what companies do best: looking after profits.
To understand this, I think it is worth looking back and clearly considering the motives of Telstra during this week. After the initial report of the marriage backdown, Fairfax journalist Jill Stark tweeted:
Rainbow phone booths and Mardi Gras floats mean nothing @Telstra when you abandon your principles chasing the dollar https://t.co/v0gKsQ3rwQ
— Jill Stark (@jillastark) April 13, 2016
Stark’s tweet is extremely insightful. She is correct in understanding that Telstra’s backdown was about them chasing a dollar. Telstra has huge contracts with the Catholic Church, in particular holding the contracts for all Catholic schools across the country. This is big business. Losing that business, which is what the church implied may be a consequence, would have been huge.
In that context their actions make sense. Companies do not have any moral lens when it comes to queer, or any other social issues. Their primary, in fact their sole goal, is to make money for their shareholders. All decisions must be seen through that lens. This is what Telstra did. From what I can read, Telstra aimed for a quiet deal with the church — remove their public support without upsetting marriage advocates at the same time. This would allow them to keep both communities — or in corporate language both markets — happy. Their problems arose when it was thrown out into the public sphere.
What’s interesting about Stark’s and other members of the queer community’s reaction is that we have not seen Telstra’s initial marriage equality support through the same lens. Whilst it looked great when Telstra set up rainbow phone booths for Mardi Gras, we have to look at those moves as about the company chasing profits as well. This is the same for all the companies who signed on to support marriage equality. I’d argue companies didn’t do so because they suddenly became great social progressives, but because they saw the potential of tapping in to the gay community and its supporters as a potential market. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is why calls for a boycott were so futile. Yes, our two other big telecommunications companies — Optus and Vodafone — did not succumb to the church’s pressure. But they also did not have the same financial considerations. In particular, they did not have the same huge contracts that Telstra has with the church, and in turn were not facing a loss of profits. Put either of those companies in the same position and I suspect they would have done the same thing.
This highlights why we should be so careful in seeking corporate support for our causes. While it may look good when companies sign up to our issues, when supporting us becomes a threat to profits — as it did for Telstra this week — these same companies will drop us if it’s convenient. That is what they are designed to do.
As anti-gay marriage conservatives campaign even harder against the march of queer progress, and target big companies as they do so, we can expect to see even more of this.
Corporate giants aren’t our friends. They’re here for the money. If profits threaten to dry up, so will their support.
This article reflects ideas developed by Simon Copland and Benjamin Riley as part their podcast, Queers. Full discussion on this issue here.