Rage Giving: Long-Term Financial Strategy or Bust?

I.      Introduction

As part of its policy efforts to dismantle programs that run counter to its objectives and views, the Trump administration froze federal funding to foreign funding, nongovernmental organizations, diversity, equity and inclusion activities, gender ideology, and the green new deal in early 2025 (Holland et al, 2025). Though initially branded as a pause, the loss of funding has been catastrophic for nonprofits (NPOs) because of their dependence on these steady streams of income. The Urban Institute (Tomasko, 2023) estimates that about 90% of NPOs with $10 million+ in annual expenses receive 54% of their revenue from government sources while more than half of nonprofits with less than $100,000 in annual expenses receive about 13% of their revenue from government sources. Additional analysis from the Urban Institute shows that between 60-80% of NPOs could fail to cover their expenses if government funding remains frozen or disappears entirely. This research is supported by the National Council of Nonprofits (n.d.), which found that most NPOs have less than three months of operating reserves on hand, meaning that it is unlikely that NPOs will be able to outlast the financial impacts of the Trump administration’s efforts to cut federal funding.

Given the compounding nature of these factors, NPOs must look to alternative, diverse sets of funding from the private sector to maintain and/or grow operations. It seemed that a possible strategy could lay in the concept of “rage giving”, however, as will be explored below, it is more likely that this is a stopgap solution that only some larger, more prominent NPOs are able to leverage. That is not to say that smaller organizations should not try to utilize this tool, but they should temper their expectations for how much this tool can alleviate financial burdens.

II.    Political Communication Theories and the Link to Giving

To understand how NPOs can leverage public outrage at cuts in federal funding, it is important to first examine the interlinkages of agenda setting, framing, and priming. As Kosicki (1993) notes, agenda setting is the idea that the media decides which issues are most salient for the public to consider. Framing is the concept of how these issues are portrayed (i.e. positively or negatively) to news consumers. Once this happens, voters are primed to vote in a certain way.

While these concepts are typically employed to understand how voters make decisions, the links between agenda setting and philanthropy have been well-established in the context of disaster relief. In exploring disaster relief donations for the Australian bush fires in 2019-2020, Chapman et al (2022) observe that “people perceived news coverage of the event to be a strong influence on the amount they donated to bushfire appeals, over and above past giving levels. Furthermore, media coverage was more influential in participants' charity selection than both peer influence and direct communications from the charities.”

However, as the public, particularly liberal voters, become increasingly outraged by the outcome of political or policy decision by the federal government, “rage giving” is increasingly popular. Rage giving is the idea that in response to political or cultural changes, donors channel their anger into giving to charity. First identified when Trump was elected in 2016, rage giving allows donors to alleviate anger regarding political, policy, and cultural events by giving towards their values (Childress 2024). In other words, in the face of events that run counter to personal beliefs, rage giving offers voters an avenue to vote with their charitable dollars. Frustration and anger regarding politics or policy changes prime voters to become donors.

Rage giving has often been linked to voter expectations about elections. CCS Fundraising (2024) notes that in the previous 9 out of 10 presidential election years, except 2008 because of the global financial crash, charitable giving increased. Conklin et al (2019) indicates that when an election outcome is expected, there is little discrepancy between donations to liberal versus conservative organizations. When election expectations are not met (i.e. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump), donors are prompted to give towards NPOs that support ideologies opposite to the winner. In 2016, this resulted in a 163% increase in donations to liberal organizations (Conklin et al 2019), and Perkins (2024) adds that while this phenomenon can be observed most easily at the presidential level, it can occur in the aftermath of elections at any level depending on how incensed voters feel about the results.

III.  Acknowledging the Remaining Gaps

While rage giving should be capitalized on to diversify funding sources in response to cuts in federal funding, it is unlikely to completely make up these funding gaps. As Bellegy (2025) points out, the philanthropic sector simply does not have the cash to fill in all the gaps. The Citi Foundation (2021) finds that 67% of all cash donations to NPOs come from individuals, and 60% of all philanthropy globally, or approximately $417 billion, comes from U.S.-based donors. The country with the next largest amount of philanthropy, the United Kingdom, only gave $18 billion to causes. While U.S.-based donors are extremely philanthropic compared to the rest of the world, it is unlikely that they could increase their giving enough to fill in the gaps.

Additionally, even if a NPO can capitalize on the moment rage, there is no guarantee that the monetary value of donations received will be extremely high or that donations will be recurring. Burack (2022) writes that “Rage givers typically donate in small sums ($5 or $10), are first-time donors to the organization, and are donating as much to make a statement as to make a difference.” After the initial wave of anger wears off, or perhaps more aptly the media agenda turns to a different topic, it is difficult to keep donors engaged. Organizations may see a huge influx of donations in the immediate fallout of an event only for that support to taper off shortly thereafter. For example, in the aftermath of the 2018 shooting at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) reported that they began seeing a new set of names began coming up on their donor lists, but that they were able to recognize this giving as a one-time response to people feeling compelled to state their values through donations (Burack, 2022). By comparing HIAS’s Form 990 from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018, we can see that there was not a substantial difference between pre-rage giving and rage giving. In fiscal year 2017, HIAS received $40,687,086 in contributions, whereas in fiscal year 2018, they received $46,527,210. While a $6 million increase in contributions is quite laudable, they have managed similar increases in contributions in most fiscal years.

Beyond the small, one-time nature of rage giving, the current state of the economy has left many experts questioning how philanthropic trends will shift. In a study of UK-based donors, Charities Aid Foundation (2025) found that only 50% of donors surveyed gave to charity in 2024, and that 44% of donors surveyed indicated that they did not give because they could not afford to. If inflation increases as some economists expect (Sherter, 2025), it is extremely likely that U.S.-based donors will find it difficult to allocate portions of their already stretched budgets to the ever-increasing number of NPOs that need support.

IV.  Recommendations for Nonprofits

Given all these constraints, it would seem impossible to effectively maintain financial sustainability as an NPO. However, NPOs must take steps to capitalize on the moment of rage giving while it is fresh. In such a moment of financial instability and uncertainty, potential cash donations must be seized as quickly as possible, especially as competition for the limited pool of contributions will be fierce amongst NPOs. By examining the fundraising tactics of NPOs that have successfully used rage giving, the following actions are recommended:

·       Lean into government failure and clearly describe impact: The whole concept of rage giving rests on the belief that in the face of government’s inability or refusal to act, the nonprofit industry will provide that service. Angry donors are motivated to support organizations that they perceive as taking tangible action against policy objectives they disagree with. For example, in 2017, when the Trump administration announced its Muslim ban, the ACLU immediately announced it was challenging the administration through multiple lawsuits (ACLU, 2017). Such quick, decisive, and public action was lauded by donors, who awarded the organization with record levels of contributions.

·       Time sensitivity and pathways to give: As additional policy changes occur that threaten the existence of an NPO altogether or run counter to its mission, NPOs must act quickly to showcase their work and leverage the feelings of frustrated, liberal donors. Time is of the essence with rage giving, but beyond clearly showcasing the actions it is taking to counter government failure, NPOs must make it as easy as possible to give to avoid donor drop-off and/or capitalize on all available charitable dollars. Research has shown that asking for specific gift amounts, such as $5, $15, or $25 will result in a greater number and value of contributions compared to open-ended requests (Moon, 2022). Additionally, by reminding donors of potential workplace matching programs, NPOs can potentially double the gift they receive. Double the Donation (2025), a workplace giving platform, notes that mentioning matching gifts in fundraising appeals increases response rate by 71%. By combining an immediate, impactful appeal with intentional messaging, NPOs can potentially unlock critical contributions to keep afloat.

·       Identify who these donors are and when they make gifts: NPOs should analyze their customer relationship management systems to identify who these donors are. Perkins (2024) recommends looking for when a donation was made. For example, was a donor’s first or only gift made during the election cycle or in the immediate aftermath of a motivating event? If so, NPOs should tailor their communications and solicitations to these concerns.

·       Engaging donors to shift from one-time donations to recurring gifts: Charities Aid Foundation America et al (2023) note that in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, donors are asked to make charitable contributions, which often end up being one-time gifts that support short-term relief efforts, ultimately ignoring long-term rebuilding efforts. The perennial struggle for these responding organizations is capturing donors’ attention over the long-term to keep contributions consistent and sustainable, and as such, the organizations are left without vital resources. Since rage giving operates along similar agenda setting trends and given the long-term financial instability implications of losing federal grants, organizations must identify marketing strategies that appeal to the specific demographics of their rage givers. For example, in the aftermath of the influx of giving HIAS experienced from the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, they turned to educational efforts, indicating that “learning about the work itself is a powerful antidote to bigotry and fear. It helps people see the positive difference being made. And that...is a chance to not only cement those relationships, but to really provide a sense that we're all making a difference together” (Burack, 2022). Rage giving is a singular act, but by bringing donors on a journey of the larger picture their gifts have supported, NPOs have an opportunity to transform a singular gift into something more.

V.    American Civil Liberties Union Case Study

As an organization whose mission is to “[take] up the toughest civil liberties cases and issues to defend all people from government abuse and overreach” (ACLU, n.d.), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a well-known NPO that is clearly establishes itself as existing to correct government failure. With this messaging firmly imbedded in its mission and programming, it comes as no surprise that liberal voters flocked to donate to it following the 2016 election. Conklin et al (2019) note that the ACLU received approximately 120,000 donations totaling $7.2 million were received in the week following Trump’s election. The ACLU experienced similar increases in giving that year during Giving Tuesday, noting that there was a 965% increase in online donations compared to 2015 (Spector, 2016).

 Mark Wier, chief development officer, offers analysis for this increase in contributions, indicating that their marketing strategies and scale did not change significantly between 2015 and 2016. According to Weir, “’At least one-third of the comments from the donors had the word ‘Trump,’ in them...Some would say, ‘Love Trumps Hate,’ or ‘turning my rage [about Trump] into action.’ Others simply said ‘Trump’” (Spector, 2016). Donors were motivated by Trump’s 2016 win to contribute a NPO’s whose mission seemed diametrically opposed to the policies they anticipated him to enact. Despite the loss of the election, they believed that contributing funds to the ACLU would be a statement of their values.

However, despite this short-term, moment of rage giving, the ACLU’s annual Form 990 shows that rage giving does seem to be just that: a temporary boost. By examining Table 1: American Civil Liberties Union Revenue and Contributions FY 2015-2024, we can see that in FY 16, the ACLU brought in approximately $10 million more in contributions it did in FY 15. In its 2017 Annual Report, the ACLU credits its next soar in contributions to donors’ response to the Trump administration’s first Muslim ban, but FYs 18,19 and 20 seem to return to normal levels of giving. It is unclear what led to the large increase in contributions in FY 21, but following that increase, contributions decrease once again in FYs 22, 23, and 24. If they were able to convert rage giving into a long-term solution, we would see continuous growth, as opposed to big increases followed by years of regular or decreased contributions.

VI.  Conclusion

Rage giving might give some immediate benefit but by looking at the most famous examples of organizations that have benefited from the phenomenon in the aftermath of an event, it cannot be confirmed that it has any long-term benefit for NPOs. While it is difficult to ignore the stunning figures raised by the ACLU and HIAS, these are both well-known organizations that already had publicity for their missions. $7.2 million in one week is an incredible amount, but it is unclear if these benefits are attainable for smaller, localized NPOs or if rage giving is a phenomenon that is somewhat exclusive to organizations that have their names out there.

However, the political environment is only becoming more contentious, and angry voters will continue to channel their feelings into charitable donors. As this continues and donors separately become more interested in giving to smaller, grassroots organizations, it is possible that we will get more data to confirm how much NPOs can leverage rage giving as a long-term financial sustainability option, but as of right now, there does not seem to be any benefit for large NPOs.

Panama: Country Brief Analysis

Introduction

This report examines Panama’s economic, social, political, environmental, and business contexts. Given our project's focus on the Guna people, it emphasizes urban-rural differences and highlights challenges faced by comarcas, or Indigenous communities, stressing the need for a holistic approach to address intersecting issues. We consistently observe that Panama struggles to balance its climate, development, and economic goals while controlling spending.

Economic Conditions

·       National Economy: Between the early 2000s and 2019, investments boosted Panama’s GDP to $69.78 billion (Panama: Selected Issues, 2023), but the COVID-19 pandemic caused a drop to $57.06 billion in 2020 (World Bank Development Indicators). GDP rebounded to $83.32 billion in 2023, yet economic concerns persist with the closure of the Cobre Panama copper mine, which previously contributed 4.8% of GDP and 2% of employment. The IMF projected a 2.5% GDP slowdown in 2024, with tax revenue and social security losses of $375 million and $120 million, respectively (IMF Press Release No. 24/244; IMF Article IV). Such losses in GDP and tax revenue will continue to hurt Panama’s ability to balance its budget and provide social services to its citizens.

·       Rural Economy: Despite being the fastest growing economy in Latin America, most key industries and most jobs are centered in the urban areas surrounding the Panama Canal corridor (World Bank Climate Risk Country Profile, 2024). Because of this concentration, formal employment in rural areas is low, and the poverty rate in comarcas remains high at 79.6% compared to the national average of 20.7% (IMF Article 4; IMF Staff Country Reports, 2020). Comarcas need social investments in education and job training for long-term stability, but Panama’s economic turmoil may hinder progress.

Social and Political Considerations

·       Social Equality and Wealth Distribution: Panama has made significant social progress since the end of the 20th century. For example, lower secondary education completion rising from 45% in 1990 to 66.6% in 2021 (World Development Indicators). As for wealth distribution, its GINI Index improved from 58.6 in 1989 to 48.9 in 2023. While the UN SDGs considers Panama on track to reduce poverty, disparities in clean water, electricity, sanitation, and literacy persist in comarcas, especially post-COVID-19 (IMF Article IV). To alleviate systemic poverty and invest in social safety nets within comarcas, various policy efforts have been announced (i.e. the 2018 Comprehensive Development Plan for Indigenous Peoples in Panama), however, gaps between urban and rural outcomes persist across multiple indicators, reflecting the need to reevaluate how best to tackle these disparities.

·       Political Corruption: Panama ranks low in corruption control and rule of law (28.30 and 40.09 percentiles in 2023) (World Governance Indicators). As a reference point, the United States ranked 83.02 and 88.679. While such low scores should have a business-dampening effect, FDI inflows across key sectors remain strong (IMF Article IV). Research suggests enterprises experienced in corruption may have a competitive advantage, explaining steady FDI growth despite governance issues (Thede et al, 2023). Those without such experience should take extreme care in understanding this interplay before starting any new business relationships in Panama.

Climate and Environmental Context

·       Climate Change Readiness: Panama has experienced rising climate-related disasters, with 32 incidents from 1982-2008 causing $86 million in damages and 33 more occurring between 2008-2020 (World Bank Climate Knowledge Portal). Floods account for 58.18% of these events, threatening urban infrastructure and economic stability (World Bank Climate Risk Country Profile, 2024). Since joining the NDC Partnership in 2016, Panama has sought support in creating effective climate change policies, yet its latest NDC lacks significant adaptation goals (World Resources Institute, 2024), raising concerns about its commitment to tackling these issues. If Panama does not adequately finance and legislate climate change solutions now, it will continue to face higher costs in damages, threatening its ability to meet its fiscal promises and development goals.

·       Considerations for Indigenous Areas: Many comarcas are isolated in flood-prone areas and are at an increased risk of being impacted by disasters. Panama responded to these concerns by initiating its first climate-related relocation of the Guna people living on a small island onto the mainland (Bower, 2024). While this move was largely celebrated, critics question the socioeconomic welfare and living conditions of those living in the new community (Escalante, 2024). Without addressing these concerns, comarcas face the possibility of paying the largest price for the Panama’s inaction on climate concerns.  

Business and Public Policy Backdrop

·       Policy Responses to Business Concerns: Panama's weak corruption and judicial oversight rankings, along with its past inclusion on FATF’s grey list, have made it a risky business environment. Despite being removed from the grey list in 2023 after legal reforms, the 2024 closure of the Cobre Panama mine, social unrest, and a new government led its loss of investment grade status by Moody’s and S&P (U.S. Department of State, 2024). Without addressing investor concerns, Panama faces high borrowing costs and potential business losses. Increased rates and business loss would further cripple Panama’s financial sustainability and development goals, which would mostly be felt by the most marginalized groups.

Analysis of the Root Causes Strategy in Central America

Introduction

In reviewing the Root Causes Strategy for Central America in conjunction with understanding the history of wealth concentration in the hands of a small, powerful group of elites, the current strategy will likely put the region on a course to continue the patterns that have put it in such a precarious position initially. Wealth disparity and power concentration is a system that began at the height of the colonial experience in Central America and has loomed ever-present since that time. The stated goal of the Root Causes Strategy is to tackle the true causes of migration, yet it is unclear who this will ultimately benefit, other than American corporations and the elites they do business with. American corporations are not known for their moral compasses, and beyond providing for the basic needs of workers to make them effective in their positions, there is little incentive for them to aid in the long-term sustainability and prosperity of the disempowered local populations of Central America.

The following paper will take an overarching approach to understanding why the Root Causes Strategy will fail. It will begin by highlighting how and why wealth and power disparities began in Central America. During Hapsburg imperialism in the 17th century, wealth and power became linked, setting the stage for class dynamics that have been in place since then. The only way to effectively contextualize a problem is by understanding its scope, and in the case of Central American wealth disparity, it is necessary to understand the colonial moment that laid the foundations for the region’s social and economic position today. By acknowledging these systems, we can see how deeply they run, giving us a more complete scope of the problem.

Next, this paper will explore how the colonial experience created a ripe environment for American corporate activity. The symbiotic relationship between American corporations and Central American elites will be demonstrated through the infamous example of the banana industry. This will highlight the fundamental issues of trying to link foreign investment to development and will showcase the role Americans have played in reinforcing class dynamics.

Finally, we will discuss the fundamental flaws of promoting development via CAFTA-DR and via corporate social responsibility through the Root Causes Strategy, citing the fragile position of local populations when they are solely supported by foreign corporations. The analysis will examine who has really benefited from CAFTA-DR, concluding that CAFTA-DR is a tool that only exacerbates the fragile economic position of Central American workers and forcing dependence on the ebbs and flows of the American market. From these analyses, we can see that in its current iteration, the Root Causes Strategy is more likely to benefit American interests than it is to positively affect the lived realities of the people who are forced to migrate for a chance at prosperity. If the Biden Administration’s aim is to strengthen American corporations through cheap, foreign labor, then the Root Causes Strategy is perfect. However, if the goal is to stem migration and create sustainable opportunity, we must provide avenues for growth that are not tied to American investment.

Because of the role Americans have historically played in reinforcing Central American class dynamics, the Biden Administration has a unique responsibility to address the harm done. Yet the strategies chosen must be reworked if the goal is to address the root causes of poverty. By providing the historical context of wealth and power and highlighting the profit-centered role of American corporations, we can create a strategy that affects a safer, more prosperous Central America.

A Multi-century Problem: The Roots of Disparity in Central America

From the earliest days of Spanish imperialism under the Hapsburgs in the 17th century until imperialism’s fall under the Bourbons in the 19th century, colonial elites used their positions to consolidate personal power and wealth, systematically siphoning that same power and wealth away from natives. Though the legality of using imperial positions for personal gain changed between dynasties, this system of economic and political dominance was fortified throughout the lifespan of Spanish imperialism, laying the bedrock for wealth concentration in the hands of elites for centuries to come. The concentration of power and wealth in such a small portion of the population is now so entrenched and interconnected that disentangling one from the other is nearly impossible. To have power is to have wealth, and once obtained, elites were unwilling to give this up. Until the causes and effects of this are properly remedied and power is redistributed, class division will be maintained.

Valued for their perceived high economic worth, political positions in colonial Central America were highly sought after. During the Hapsburg’s reign, a magisterial position was not viewed as an opportunity to serve king and country but rather an opportunity to exploit power for personal gain (Patch 1994; 92). Though these positions paid little, magistrates would use the repartimiento system to force native populations to produce goods that the magistrates would then sell back to them, cyclically indebting natives while enriching themselves (Patch 1994; 95). This system generated and reinforced the political and economic dominance of colonists, while stripping away that same power from locals.  This formal and informal system of economic and political dominance was fortified throughout the lifespan of Spanish imperialism, laying the bedrock for wealth concentration in the hands of elites.

Though late 18th century reform efforts from the Bourbon Spanish crown to reestablish its authority tried to quash repartimiento, the colonists would not easily give up this dominance. The interconnectedness of political power and personal wealth made any attempt at reform futile and served to harbor feelings of distrust and frustration toward the crown (Brown 1995, 412). As established under the Hapsburg dynasty, colonists did not come to Central America because of a sense of civic duty; they came to get rich. Reforms to take away the system that provided this wealth would never be accepted and irrevocably changed the relationship between the crown and colonial elites, as the colonists were unwilling to abandon a system that afforded them so much.

              The opportunity for elites to break away from these changes and formalize their dominance once again soon presented itself through the 19th -century rebellions of enslaved, indigenous, and mestizo groups. The Bourbon reforms chafed the colonists so greatly that many colonists saw the opportunity to co-opt revolution for their gain. Originally conceived by oppressed classes as a means of overthrowing the Spanish yoke, the revolution became an opportunity for local elites to continue and once again formalize these preferential political and economic schemes without monarchical oversight (Brown, 1995; 439-440; Andrews, 1985; 128). Thus, the system of wealth disparities and concentration began to move forward from colonial times to modernity.

While revolutionary in name, the fall of the Spanish empire did not constitute any significant changes in the political or economic structures that already existed in Central America. Political power still directly translated to personal gain, and elites in the new Central American Federation were now able to maintain and build on their power without any checks from a crown. As the new Central American states embarked on this journey of post-colonialism, it was beneficial for their already empowered elites to maintain the colonial systems that originally enriched them, laying the foundations for wealth disparity for centuries to come.

The Benefits of Dependency: How American Corporations Keep Central American Elites Wealthy

With the fall of Spanish imperialism in the 19th century, Central America was left to the control of elites who used their imperial experience to become enriched and empowered. Once the crown was gone, they continued these enterprises without monarchical oversight, but persistent instability throughout the 19th and 20th centuries chipped at this wealth concentration, laying the groundwork for American corporations to enact a modern dependency that exported cheap goods for the benefit of American consumers and economies, most notably through the banana industry. Through participation in the banana trade, elites could maintain their wealth through via lucrative contracts with American corporations. However, this had the deleterious effect of continuously forcing reliance on those same corporations for money and power. This system has become the basis for American corporate activity in the region, and until this is addressed, Central American elites will be indefinitely reactive to American needs.

This trend of American corporations shaping Central America is best seen through the land ownership and trade relations established through banana production. By the mid-20th century, most land in the region was owned and operated for banana production, and 60% of the region’s export earnings came from bananas and other agricultural commodities (Bruyn 1971, 55-56; Siddiqui 1998, A-128). While traditional capitalist theories would expect this increase in global trade to strengthen the region, this domination effectively shifted the economy to produce goods almost exclusively for American use. As this system has been sustained over decades, Central American economies have been continuously hobbled and forced to rely on American business to keep it running.

This dependent relationship was extremely beneficial to elites, as continuous business with American corporations provided them with lucrative contracts and hush money. To maintain hegemony in land ownership and trade, corporations relied on the cooperation of local governments and the acquiescence of local elites to ensure the flow of goods. Monopolies on land ownership were illegal in some states, but by examining the most famous American banana exporter, United Fruit Company (UFCO), we can see that this was often overcome through “special arrangements” of paying off governments and elites (Bruyn 1971, 56; Bucheli 2004, 182). Though UFCO’s ownership of land steadily decreased through the 1960s (Bucheli et al, 2012; 858), this simply suggests that the company spent more money directly influencing the elites who owned the land on which their products were grown. American corporations could make huge production requests in exchange for money to keep elites in power. Thus, to retain wealth and a guise of power, elites were only required to allow corporations unfettered access to their economies.

Despite UFCO’s actions being denounced by many, similar corporate structures still operate in the region today. Central American economies and elites are reliant on American corporate dollars to prop them up, and there are historical examples of the devastating effects caused by a corporation with a huge presence suddenly leaving the region. During World War II, UFCO was forced to abandon its operations in Magdalena, Colombia, resulting in a major economic depression that forced both elites and workers to find new means of support (Bucheli, 2004; 196). Once the war ended and American demand for bananas went back up, exports skyrocketed (Bucheli, 2004; 198), highlighting the extremeness of this dependency. If corporations divested, elites and governments would lose their financial links to power, resulting in similarly devastating consequences. Elites are just as invested in maintaining dependency on American corporations as American corporations are invested in maintaining access to cheap goods. While we must consider ways to rectify this corporatism and the corrupting enrichment schemes that arise from it, it will be important to address it in a way that redistributes power and money.

A Captive Workforces: Incentivizing Aid Through CAFTA-DR

To stem Central American migration caused by corruption and poverty, the Biden Administration launched its 2021 Root Causes Strategy (The White House) and announced a Call to Action for American corporations to invest in Central America for its development (“FACT SHEET”). Separately, in 2022, the Administration promoted CAFTA-DR to increase trade between the US and partner countries (“Webinar Series on CAFTA-Dr Textiles and Apparel Provisions”). While these initiatives focus on providing opportunities for foreign investment, the Call to Action and CAFTA-DR have set the stage for local economic security to depend on US corporations by tying development to the interests of these foreign corporations. Though touted as the means of development, the promise of jobs and benefits from the Call to Action and CAFTA-DR are tying vulnerable populations to a region that will not have its systemic issues addressed by the private sector. If these corporate partners divest, progress will be lost.

Since its creation, CAFTA-DR has been marketed as a tool to drive investment so that both American and participating Central American economies would benefit. In 2022, as the Biden Administration strongly advocated for greater use of the textile and apparel provisions of the agreement, the United States Trade Representative boldly proclaimed to Central American producers that “Your success is our success” (“Webinar Series on CAFTA-Dr Textiles and Apparel Provisions”). However, when analyzing the free trade agreement (FTA) and the context in which it was signed, it becomes clear that it was originally only signed to shore up the United States’ competitiveness in the global economy by finding the cheapest sources of labor (Pinder, 2009; 228). Central American development was just a line used to sell the idea of the FTA. Since CAFTA-DR's signing, the only substantive changes in the region have been that CAFTA-DR has forced Central American producers to become hyper-specialized in cheap products, such as knit t-shirts, making these producers increasingly sensitive to American economic shifts (Niell 2020, 325; Pinder 2009, 230). Thus, as was seen with banana production, economies have been shaped to American consumerism, so it is unsurprising that other similar trends are getting repeated.

As American investment in Central America increases, so does this level of dependence, exponentially. CAFTA-DR has offered American corporations great incentives to do business in Central America, and many have capitalized on the cheap labor and lack of social protections to increase their profitability (Pinder, 2009; 229). USTR data shows that as of 2022, CAFTA-DR trade is up 62% since 2012 (“CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America FTA)”), and these trends have primarily benefited American corporations and Central American elites that own production (Niell, 2020; 325). At the same time, while workers’ wages have generally increased, the cost of living and basic food basket have also increased, negating any benefit of American investment (Niell, 2020; 326). As Kopinak et al observe, American corporations have moved production to this region to reduce costs, thus making it unlikely that they would advocate for higher wages (2020; 2). This data shows that investments are doing nothing to help the workers it claims will substantially benefit, keeping economic benefits within the hands of American corporations and the Central American elites that own the means of production.

While corporations obtain a reputational boost for providing jobs in an impoverished region, it is critical to remember that they make investment decisions that are most profitable. It could be argued that CAFTA-DR is a tangible incentive for American corporations to do business in Central America for the long-term, allowing for the benefits of increased trade and stable jobs to positively affect social and economic change, however, the evidence shows that the FTA has only benefitted American corporations and the elites they work with.  If an increase in trade were tied to improvements in development, surely, Central American workers would have seen some level of improvement in the last two decades.

A Captive Workforce: Incentivizing Aid Through Corporate Social Responsibility

Though the Root Causes Strategy and Call to Action are government attempts to spur development through corporate investment and intervention in Central America, it is unlikely that these partnerships will last beyond their reputational and financial usefulness as deemed by the corporations. In cases in which governance is weak and public corruption is high, corporations have been expected to step in to fill the gaps through the privatization of public services (Cranenburgh et al, 2014; 524). When corporations fill these needs, they enjoy not only a positive reputation and social license to operate, but also a workforce that is cohesive, safe, healthy, and educated (Gautier, 2015; 347). In this sense, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and philanthropy becomes a strategic initiative to improve the bottom line. It is a stopgap solution that may provide jobs but does nothing to address the systemic issues that weakened these regions to begin with. While corporate ethos reflects that a functioning society equals a better functioning business, this thinking only considers the wellbeing of locals insofar as the corporation’s interest is maintained.

While corporations providing jobs and social safety nets may seem to meet development goals, this only results in a positive reputation for the corporation, providing no structural change and a captive workforce that must work for the corporation to receive any social benefits. Corporate interest is tied to profitmaking, as can be seen through Cranenburgh’s case study on Heineken’s corporate philanthropic mission of funding private healthcare in Sub-Saharan Africa for its employees and their communities to tackle ineffective public healthcare (2014; 528). Though reputationally beneficial, Heineken has likely only maintained this program because of their production presence in the region, understanding that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce (“Africa and Middle East (AME)”). However, without Heineken’s support, the program’s long-term sustainability would be at risk (Cranenburgh et al, 2014; 530). If Heineken divested, communities would be the only stakeholder to suffer.

In the case of Central America, the Call to Action is an incentive to maximize profitability while engaging in CSR efforts to improve workers’ lives. Sánchez notes that, historically, foundations have been established and funded throughout the region by corporate actors to help fill these social gaps (2000, 366), and with the Call to Action, this trend will continue if the incentives are maintained. This counters Kopinak et al’s thesis that corporations that move production to Central America are uninterested in providing meaningful pay and benefits (2020; 2), however, the provision of these benefits will likely only continue if the Call to Action is in place. CSR programs and the provision of these benefits are huge costs to maintain, especially in regions where such protections do not publicly exist. It is not difficult to imagine a change in the United States government that would end the Call to Action, ending incentives for billions of dollars' worth of aid to flow into Central America (“FACT SHEET”) and reestablishing CAFTA-DR as the sole benefit to producing there.  This underscores that Central America’s economic success is predicated on American investment. If this incentive is lost, communities will lose their economic lifelines, while corporations will have simply found a cheaper production region.

Predicating Central America’s sustainable development on CSR and philanthropy is a faulty line of logic that relies on corporation’s long-term altruism, instead of recognizing that these initiatives are done for strategic reasons. As was determined when analyzing the faults with relying on CAFTA-DR as a mechanism for development, once the strategic benefits of participating in the Call to Action dissipate, there will be no reason for these corporations to maintain such strong safety nets in the region. Thus, economic opportunities and social benefits will be lost, and Central American workers will be left with structures that do not support them.

Conclusion

The history of Central America has been inextricably linked to the interests of elites and foreign corporations that seek to make their wealth by continuously siphoning it away from an already disempowered working class. It has been a history of maintaining power and wealth through any means necessary. Though the Biden Administration maintains its commitment to stem migration by creating greater opportunity in Central America, without recognizing the history of class disparities and the role American corporations have played in reinforcing these systems, any attempt at development will be fruitless. Colonialism created an imbalanced system, and American corporations exacerbated these disparities by turning Central America into their personal cash cow. Thus, the reliance on corporations to do right by their workers through CSR and investment as set out by the Root Causes Strategy and Call to Action is set to create short-term steps towards growth that could collapse as soon as there is a change in the United States’ government. Quite simply, there is no incentive for corporations to create sustainable growth. Once the Call to Action ends, incentives to doing business in Central America will revert solely to those offered by CAFTA-DR, which have been shown to exclusively benefitting American corporations and local elites. Resources for development will dissipate, and we will ask why Central America still has such wealth concentration and a lack of social and economic safety nets for the working class.

As initially stated, the Biden Administration’s goal of addressing the disparities in Central America to stem migration is admirable and should be generally maintained because of the role Americans have played in shaping the current situation. However, we must think of a better way to do this than relying on foreign investment to fix a problem it initially caused. Few American corporations have ever based their long-term corporate strategies on an altruistic need to help a region, and once the benefits of doing business in Central America dissipate, they will divest en masse. As seen through the example of Heineken’s corporate social responsibility in Africa, these activities are typically funded for a tangible benefit to the corporation itself. Production in Central America has historically been popular because of its cheap labor and lack of social protection. The Call to Action makes doing business more expensive, and because of the greater financial incentives offered by CAFTA-DR, corporations will cease these expensive CSR tactics once the program ends. Thus, the people the Root Causes Strategy hopes to help will again be left without economic opportunity or social power.

The Challenges of Framing Climate Change to Conservative Audiences and Understanding Why it Hasn’t Stuck

I.      Connecting Agenda Setting and Framing to Climate Change

Agenda setting and framing are tools used by the media to make news consumers think about a topic and then provide contextualization about that topic, respectively. As Kosicki (1993) notes, agenda setting gives us a shell of a topic, but framing gives us the controversies and multiple dimensions through which we can understand a salient topic (112). However, news consumers do not act as blank slates that adopt any frames they come across, and instead, they use these frames to either take in or disregard this information, according to how it fits into their preconceived worldview.

Thus, news consumers are unlikely to be persuaded by media that goes against their values. As news media has become more alarmist to garner more views and grab the consumers’ attention in an increasingly complex and competitive landscape, news consumers become more likely to write off information that does not apply to them. In this new news environment in which people are surrounded by traditional news media, social media, and soft news, there are an exponential number of frames that people can use to understand agendas, and because of the sheer amount of media available nowadays, it has become infinitely easier to exist within the echo chamber of news that closely aligns with a consumer’s views.

This trend can be understood by analyzing conservative news consumers’ views of climate change.  Explored below, the liberal media has increasingly relayed that climate change and the degradation of the environment are important issues to consider. However, because of the framing they use to relay the saliency of this topic, in addition to the ability to only engage with media that matches ones’ viewpoints, there can be huge variability in how much people are willing to accept that addressing climate change is an urgent topic.

II.   Analyzing Perceptions of Climate Change Relative to Agenda Setting and Framing

Despite the partisanship that has affected how people think of climate change, in recent years, it has become an increasingly salient topic. As noted by the Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO), news coverage of climate change has exploded in recent years (Simpkins, 2021). MeCCO also observed that this increase in coverage coincided with a change in language used to describe it; climate change coverage has diversified its framing to use more alarmist terms such as “climate catastrophe” and “climate emergency,” noting that usage of the term “climate catastrophe” doubled in the United States between 2020 and 2021 (Simpkins, 2021). Describing similar changes in climate change coverage, Perloff (2021) also notes that while the media reported climate for years, it did not sway news consumers until influential politicians and experts also began speaking about it publicly. We can see this relative importance in public perception rise by analyzing Global Risk Reports from the World Economic Forum; the 2010 edition of the report scantly mentions climate and environmental risks, whereas the 2024 edition notes climate concerns as increasingly important (World Economic Forum). While these changes in framing and increased attention showcase the urgency of climate change as an agenda, we must question if this change has served to change the minds of climate change detractors, or if it has simply served to feed the echo chamber of climate change believers.

When news agendas are framed, news consumers process that frame according to their personal belief systems. As Perloff (2021) asserts, climate change has been a topic in the media for years, but people typically only care about the issues that affect them personally and/or can be logically understood. This is particularly true of conservatives, who typically value self-enhancement and conservation, as opposed to liberals, who typically value an openness to change and self-transcendence (Bolte et al., 2024). Through this understanding, we would expect that as the science behind climate change became stronger, and climate change events became more prevalent, conservatives should no longer write it off as a minor or unimportant issue.

Yet by and large, this has not happened, and conservatives, while they see climate change within the news agenda, still think of the topic negatively. Despite the evidence that is increasingly difficult to ignore and signaling from the media that it must be addressed, climate change has not “stuck” with conservative news consumers, and this negative perception comes down to the framing of climate change. Bolte et al (2024) argue that this is the case for several reasons: the concept of change is more palatable to liberals; the topic itself is not easy to understand; and it is still often framed as a phenomenon that affects people in the Global South. These frames go against conservatives’ values instead of trying to discuss the issue within a frame that works within their worldviews, making them unlikely to be persuaded by what they interpret as liberal calls to action.

Additionally, the increased framing of climate change as an issue that must be acted on immediately has negatively affected conservatives’ views on the issue and is unlikely to persuade them to the cause. In a recent study by Pew Research, conservative survey participants indicated that they were unlikely to believe traditional media outlets’ framing that climate change is going to destroy the world (Pasquini et al., 2023). The participants indicated that the larger, more alarmist a claim is, the less likely they are to accept it as a relevant claim. This finding is supported by Cassidy’s (2018) claim that the larger an issue and the more people are blamed for playing a role, the more likely they are to dissociate from fixing the problem or double down on their original opinions. Liberal media frames climate change as being caused by anthropogenic activities, such as coal and oil production, subliminally blaming anyone that engages in those activities directly or tangentially as playing a part in the destruction of the world. By making this claim, even unintentionally, liberal media is causing conservatives to double-down on their opinions that climate change is not an urgent issue.

III. Agenda Setting and Framing in the Current Media Landscape

As more communication tools have been accessible to news consumers, there has been less reason for them to engage with viewpoints that differ from their own. Because of the explosion of communication tools from social media as described by Perloff (2021), news consumers can easily exist within their news echo chamber, thus making conservatives unlikely to consume media that discusses climate change as needing urgent attention. Alternatively, they will consume media that is actively derisive of these frames. In an interview with American University, Betsy Fischer Martin (2024) describes a similar effect in which she says that in this new media environment with its deluge of news sources, news consumers can “choose [their] own media adventure when it comes to...having [their] own views regurgitated back to [them].” There are almost too many options for people to get news, thus resulting in news consumers not having to challenge themselves with alternative viewpoints, not having to listen to more objective or bipartisan framings, or unwittingly engaging with false narratives.

This reticence to engage alternative viewpoints makes it increasingly easier for consumers to ignore the news that does not fit their values, thus further siloing liberal and conservative thinking. Barnard (2018) pinpoints this siloing as tribalism, arguing that people are likely to only listen to other members of their same tribe, resulting in what Fischer Martin (2024) refers to as a “hyper-partisan atmosphere.” Because of this hyper-partisan atmosphere and tribalism, conservatives either engage with media that does not view climate change as an agenda worthy of coverage or its coverage frames the issue in such a way that they do not view it as an issue needing action.

IV. Conclusion and Moving Beyond Echo Chambers

Addressing climate change is typically framed as a liberal agenda, and therefore, the idea of climate change as a salient, urgent issue is much more likely to resonate with liberals. Because of these frames and increasingly partisan and siloed media echo chambers that liberal and conservative news consumers exist within, there will be huge variability in the ways that a contentious topic such as climate change will be covered, if it is covered at all.

If climate change activists wish to change this outcome, they must look for ways to break the news echo chamber. Barnard (2018) offers the idea of finding champions within conservative circles who can frame issues around conservative values. By working within these siloed spaces, climate change activists would not have to discern how to get conservatives to listen to different media. Within conservative circles and through these champions, climate change could become a topic worthy of genuine discussion to them, creating more bipartisan support for the issue and ultimately priming them to productively act on it.

Once a more tenable bipartisan unity is reached, climate change activists could use a news flashpoint to frame the issue as a local one. As noted above, conservatives care about issues that personally affect them, and by using a news flashpoint as described by Perloff (2021), such as a major natural disaster that would not ordinarily occur, partisanship on climate change could be bridged. Wiest et al (2015) builds on this, arguing that framing climate change as an issue affecting local areas increases its perception as an urgent issue. Individuals care more about climate change when they can see the impacts of it up close and when it affects their communities, and to create convergence across such a contentious issue in such a complex media environment, we must look to reframe the issue to address the values of both liberals and conservatives.

The Fashion Fight: Threading the Communications Needle on the New York Fashion Act

1.     Patagonia Versus the Business Council of New York State on the Fashion Act

The Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act

Originally proposed during the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, New York State Assembly Bill 2021-A8352, titled The Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act, or known colloquially as the New York Fashion Act (NYFA), was designed to curb the fashion industry’s most unsustainable and inequitable tendencies. As written, the bill would require fashion retailers and manufacturers to “disclose environmental and social due diligence policies [and] establishes a community benefit fund for the purpose of implementing one or more environmental benefit projects that directly and verifiably benefit environmental justice communities” (The New York State Senate). Though proposed in the New York State Legislature, the bill would have had far-reaching, global consequences. The first of its kind, the bill would force any retailer doing business in New York exceeding $100 million in revenue to conduct mandatory due diligence across its supply chain. Non-compliant corporations would be required to mitigate and prevent future harm and could be subject to a fine worth 2% of their annual state revenue and be published on a list of noncompliant companies (Lisa, 2022). Additionally, the bill provided enforcement powers to state officials and was intended to provide clear guidance to the industry on acceptable standards (The Fashion Act). When the 2021-2022 session closed, lawmakers tried to improve the bill by clearing up any vague or undefined areas, and it has since been reintroduced (Lisa, 2022).

Up to this point, corporate environmental and social improvements have been addressed by voluntary programs and accreditations, resulting in a myriad of half-baked corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs and a dizzying number of accreditation schemes that corporations could choose to partake in. Because of the mandatory nature of this bill, its steep financial consequences, global scope, the bill quickly became a flash point. Perloff (2021) describes that for a flash point to occur, “an opinion climate built over time by activists, journalists, policymakers, and changing public attitudes.” Over the last decade, the fashion industry has received negative attention from several incidents, including the 2012 Tazreen Fashion factory fire, 2013 Rana Plaza collapse, and the 2021 rape and murder of textile worker Jeyasre Kathirvel. These incidents and their resulting lackluster mitigation measures outraged activists, and such issues became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (LeBaron et al, 2021). Thus, we can see that “the legislation is no small matter to the $2.5 trillion fashion industry” because of its far-reaching demands (Koshofer, 2024).  Remake (Wicker et al, 2024) underscores this point through its assessment of 52 companies on indicators spanning various environmental and social issues, noting that out of 150 possible points, the average score was 14.

During a personal interview with Tess Bone (2023), Senior Director at Fontheim International, she added some additional context to this by relaying that historically, most corporations have only cared about environmental and social issues within their supply chains insofar as it affected their reputations. However, using the example of the United States Customs and Border Protection’s recent uptick in issuing Withhold and Release Orders for goods thought to be made with forced labor from Xinjiang, Bone (2023) argued that as governments have begun regulating these issues, corporations have borne the financial brunt of these legal impacts and have cleaned up their supply chains to make sure their imports are not seized. When contextualizing this against the NYFA, one can see how hugely expensive it would be to pay the proposed fines and clean up a brand’s supply chain to avoid regulatory action. Given this background, it can be surmised that fashion retailers and business associations generally oppose the bill, while climate, labor, and fashion activists support it.

Patagonia’s Response

Perhaps surprisingly to outsiders, Patagonia has been a vocal proponent of the NYFA. From its earliest days, Patagonia’s founder Yvon Chouinard (2016) has focused the company’s ethos on “[using] business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.” This resulted in urging its customers to consider if they need their products before they purchase them (Patagonia, 2011) to working across the fashion industry to recruit more companies to become more environmentally responsible (Patagonia, 2023). While Patagonia is a successful business that draws consumers beyond its target audience of outdoorsmen, their messaging indicates that they do not care about following trends but instead care about producing quality products that create as little environmental impact as possible, while actively using their platform to promote positive change. They have repeatedly stressed that they will do the right thing, even if it proves more expensive and time-consuming, as can be seen by their choice to only use certified organic cotton and map their entire cotton supply chain to ensure traceability (Chouinard, 2016).

Understanding this background, Patagonia’s support of the NYFA is reasonable. They have long stressed that the fashion industry must change and that they cannot be the only company to act sustainably. When the NYFA was introduced, Patagonia was listed on the NYFA’s official website as a supporter (The Fashion Act) (Appendix, Exhibit 1) and expressed its support before the bill made it to session (Kent, 2022). Corley Kenna, Patagonia’s head of communications and policy, says that Patagonia supports the legislation because it is important to mandate compliance (Goth, 2023) (Appendix, Exhibit 2). Patagonia reaffirmed its support of the bill by sending a 2023 letter to Governor Kathy Hochul from CEO Ryan Gellert, arguing that it is key to reducing emissions and labor abuses in fashion supply chains (Patagonia, 2023) (Appendix, Exhibit 3). Environmental and social responsibility is not a reputational consideration, but a primary concern and consideration in any business venture for Patagonia.

By showing support for the bill at the executive level, in addition to its longstanding history of advocating for sustainability, Patagonia paints itself as a trustworthy corporation looking to make real impact. In both messages, Patagonia frames its support of the NYFA as a necessary compliance tool to create radical change across the fashion industry. Ryan Gellert writes “We know that Patagonia alone won’t solve the climate crisis — we need all companies in our industry to demonstrate serious progress on environmental and social issues, and to be held accountable for their claims.” Corley Kenna (Goth, 2023) reiterates this need for accountability, stating that “Most of the claims that companies make with regard to people and planet are voluntary, and there’s no enforcement, right?...With that, you get a lot of claims and not a lot of action.” The overarching theme of these messages show that the outlook for a sustainable future is bleak without the bill, but that by passing the NYFA, the fashion industry can achieve “scalable change and positive impact” (Patagonia, 2023).

These ideals align with liberal perspectives that protecting the environment and vulnerable population is a necessity (Bolte et al, 2024), and while many fashion consumers do not consider a brand’s sustainability efforts when shopping, the proportion of consumers who do consider this is increasing (Nosto, 2024). By supporting a regulation that could be unfriendly to a corporate entity, Patagonia signals to this audience that profits do not matter, and it is confident enough in its sustainability scores that it will remain unscathed by the bill’s passage.

The Business Council of New York State’s Response

On the opposite side of the political advocacy surrounding the NYFA stands the Business Council of New York State. Self-described as the leading business association for over 3,000 small and large companies in New York (“About the Business Council”), it acts as a political advocate for companies. As a business association, its views are formed by its members, and it is therefore unlikely that they would endorse any legislative action that could result in significant operational overhaul or financial burden for the companies it serves. The Business Council was originally founded in 1914 as the Associated Industries of New York State (AI) to devise a response to recently enacted labor laws (“About the Business Council”), arguing that such legislation would be unfavorable to business (University of Albany). Archival materials show that “The general goal of Associated Industries was to restrict government involvement in business affairs” (University of Albany), though in its modern iteration at the Business Council, they have reframed their edict as working towards “a healthier business climate, economic growth, and jobs” (“About the Business Council”).

Anecdotally, many fast fashion retailers oppose the proposed legislation, but it is difficult to find any brands that will do this openly. As explored above, retailers are most cognizant of any reputational harm that could befall their companies, and openly stating opposition to a bill that frames itself as righting an ethical wrong would be damaging. Instead, they rely on business associations, such as the Business Council of New York State, to provide criticisms. In an official statement from April 2023, The Business Council argues that while it “understands the need for corporate social responsibility and sustainability; however, it must be accomplished in a way that is not harmful to businesses” and that the bill could force retailers and suppliers to disclose sensitive business information and potentially violate confidentiality agreements. (The Business Council, 2023) (Appendix, Exhibit 4). Most importantly, it argues that the bill is superfluous, and its standards are “unattainable,” labelling the environmental standards as “unnecessary” because brands are already working to comply with another environmental protection law and have internal CSR programs. The Business Council’s Vice President of Government Affairs Ken Pokalsky further articulates that “’You can have ambitious goals, but it has to be done in a workable way. And you have to be giving a New York state business something they can actually have a practical way to achieve without imposing significant penalties on them. That’s our real concern’” (Forstner, 2023). Through this messaging, they carefully communicate that they endorse the ethical concerns that the bill is trying to address but believe its teeth to be too harsh, which would create more harm than maintaining the status quo.

This messaging paints an extremely negative view of the NYFA. By calling on other environmental protection bills, CSR efforts, and labelling the bill as bad for business, particularly smaller, state businesses, the Business Council looks to invoke conservative values. Bolte et al (2024) assert that conservatives most value self-enhancement and conservation, which feeds into the idea that business exists solely to make profit. Undertaking expensive supply chain mapping activities, remedying the associated harms, and potentially paying out significant fines runs counter to traditional conceptions of the purpose of a business and these conservative values.

Interestingly, by opposing the bill, the Business Council of New York State is aligning itself with some suppliers who acknowledge that many retailers have bad behaviors that need to be curbed but worry that the burden of cleaning up the supply chain will fall solely to them. Miran Ali, vice president of trading group in Southeast Asia, notes that “A lot of the cost of compliance is simply that the credit is taken by the brand, and the cost is passed on to the supplier—that’s something we don’t want to see” (Chua, 2024). He continues by saying that suppliers want fairer terms of trade and to be paid on time by retailers (Chua, 2024), suggesting that the bill is unwanted by the stakeholders it claims to benefit most.

II. Analysis and Critique

Patagonia

The strength of Patagonia’s argument for support is in the way that it has framed itself as a company. As Kuklinksi et al (2000) show with their study on the heuristics of biased interpretation of messages, we are generally more likely to believe that a change is necessary when the message comes from a person or group that we believe has the authority or social standing to speak about a topic. In their study, they found that when African Americans were presented with a fake message that was accredited to a black source, they were more likely to believe it than if it were attributed to a white source. In this way, the black sources were given a social accreditation that made them legitimate to African American voters. Because of its advocacy and social responsibility efforts, Patagonia has made itself into a trustworthy. Consumers can believe what Patagonia advocates for without looking too deeply into it. Therefore, it has developed the heuristic amongst its consumers that any bill it supports will have a positive ethical impact.

However, the heuristic Patagonia has developed for itself could backfire if the bill is ultimately passed with provisions that run counter to its goals. By voicing such vehement support for the bill before its final provisions are made, Patagonia risks having to walk back its initial statements, which could be difficult to frame easily. As Harder (2018) writes, words matter and in the modern media landscape, most people are not looking beyond the headlines of an article. People would see that Patagonia opposes a revolutionary bill that tries to do everything the company has said it supports and are likely to feel confused or angered by the decision. Corley Kenna tries to subliminally communicate this caveat by indicating that if Patagonia is happy with the final version of the law, then they will gladly see it replicated across states (Goth, 2023) but this byline pales in comparison to the overwhelming support they have given the NYFA and will not hold much weight if they need it to.

Despite the strengths of Patagonia’s arguments, it is also possible that the framing of these arguments will make it difficult for them to find partners for change amongst the group of unsustainable, fast fashion corporations, as Ryan Gellert indicates he wants to do in his letter (Patagonia, 2023). Perloff (2021) notes that framing is the way “an entity defines and structures subordinate physical or verbal objects,” and as previously mentioned, Patagonia has consciously and subliminally framed itself at the pinnacle of an environmentally and socially responsible company. They were sustainable before it was reputationally beneficial to call oneself sustainable, and they still maintain huge profitability while doing it (Dossa, 2015). If another, less sustainable company were to openly work with Patagonia on improving its supply chain, it would unintentionally shine a light on how ethically poor its supply chain is, especially when compared to Patagonia’s. Patagonia is fighting for change across the fashion industry, but being so good and trustworthy might make it a difficult partner to align with.  

The Business Council of New York State

The strength of the Business Council of New York State’s argument that the NYFA will be destructive to business lays in its ability to reframe the argument that the bill has already framed. By enacting mandatory due diligence on supply chains, the bill aims to address what its writers consider to be a lackluster effort by brands to be sustainable. However, the Business Council reframes this by saying that brands are already complying with laws and are going the extra mile by working on internal policies to address sustainability issues, indicating that anything extra would be tantamount to draconian. As Daly (2011) describes, “Any new proposal can be framed as an opportunity either to gain something or to avoid a threat,” and by highlighting the existential threat to business that the NYFA could create, the Business Council reframed the debate around the bill to show that its attempt to foster some good could lead to even greater harm.

Additionally, by framing the NYFA as unnecessary, the Business Council keys into a concern about sustainability frameworks that companies across industries have touted. In a personal interview with Christopher Chambers (2023), a member of Freeport-McMoRan's Enterprise Risk Management Program, he highlighted businesses suffer because they are constantly trying to keep updated on the reporting metric “flavor of the day.” In this way, companies can frame their lack of action on an inconsistency in messaging from sustainability schemes. They can argue that they want to do the right thing and are working towards it, but that the playing field is constantly changing. By keying into this longstanding argument, the Business Council can reinforce support amongst its most anti-sustainability members that it is on their side.

However, despite these strengths, the Business Council may be alienating an increasingly larger contingent of consumers who believe that the fashion industry is not doing enough to be sustainable and is engaging in greenwashing. Suzanne Hawkes (2010) writes that in any campaign setting, it is important to consider the message box, an aspect of which includes considering what opponents to a campaign will say about it. She writes that “They will almost certainly be seeking to highlight our weaknesses, and to then contrast those with their own strengths and the merits of their positions. In a political or highly contentious advocacy campaign, they will seek to dominate the debate here – to put our team on the defensive,” and by centering its argument on the idea that business is already working on enough nonbinding, goodwill efforts to become sustainable, the Business Council leaves itself open to the very easy argument that businesses have had years to do the right thing but have little to show for it, as shown by Remake’s (Wicker et al, 2024) report on sustainability in the fashion industry.

Additionally, as more evidence becomes accessible showing that the fashion industry is not taking these goodwill efforts seriously, it will be hard for the Business Council to argue that voluntary action is enough. This is supported by Perloff’s (2021) assertion that people will not believe media that contradicts something they can clearly see. In a survey by Nosto (2019), 52% of respondents indicated that they wanted the fashion industry to become more sustainable, indicating that they do not currently believe the industry is doing enough. As Remake and other anti-fast fashion activists continue to flood social media with evidence of environmental and labor abuses, fewer consumers will be able to believe the Business Council’s arguments.

III. Conclusion

As a bill that is the first of its kind, the NYFA was destined to get a lot of attention. Proponents of the bill will celebrate that after years of seemingly unregulated business activity that has caused environmental and social harms fast fashion brands will finally be held accountable. Opponents of the bill will decry how harmful it could be, painting a future with the bill as more destructive than what it aims to protect. It remains to be seen if this bill will be passed, but because of various social and regulatory trends, such as the EU’s 2023 Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (Gibson Dunn, 2024), it is increasingly likely that the debate around this law will continue, or similar legislation will be introduced. The political and social climate is ready for change, and it is extremely unlikely that opponents will be able to stem it entirely. Opponents of the bill would be better suited accepting that some form of the NYFA is coming and reframe their messages to argue specific points of the legislation, rather than the necessity of the legislation itself.