In October 2016, Darren
Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, became the newest member of PepsiCo’s
board of directors. Whereas Walker worked at the time for a
more just and equitable society, Pepsi was making the bulk of its money by
selling sugary drinks and fatty snacks and there being a well-established link
between obesity and economic inequality. Would he be working at cross-purposes?
“There’s a risk that he will be viewed as inconsistent,” said Michael Edwards,
a former Ford Foundation executive at the time.[1] The company itself could also be viewed as being
inconsistent—lobbying against anti-obesity public-health legislation while
putting Walker on the board of directors.
To be sure, the Ford
Foundation had not funded organizations working to combat obesity or diabetes,
so there does not seem to be a direct conflict of interest for Walker.[2] Yet he did acknowledge, “I know that my own
credibility and the credibility of the Ford Foundation is tied to this decision.
Those of us in philanthropy have to be discerning about the corporate boards we
join, and be discriminating to ensure that our service on a board is aligned
with our values.”[3]
So rather than there being
a conflict of interest, the issue for Walker was whether he could act as a
reformer from within. Even though he
planned bring the perspective of a social-justice organization and his own
perspective “as someone who is deeply concerned about the welfare of people in
poor and vulnerable communities,” he would still bear responsibility should
PepsiCo’s board go in another direction.[4] He would not, in other words, be chairman of the
board. That the company had just pledged to further reduce the amount of sugar,
fat, and salt in its products by 2025, however, suggests an appetite for
accommodation with Walker’s perspective. Additionally, Walker would not be
responsible for the company’s past unethical lobbying against anti-obesity
legislation, use of unethical suppliers of palm oil, and deceptive marketing,
and the company had since taken steps to remedy these ethical problems.[5]
As in politics, the matter
for Walker and the other board-members concerning would be whether together
they could wield compromises taking into account both Walker’s vantage-point
and the legal and ethical fiduciary duty to act as faithful stewards of the stockholders’ capital. Reform
from “the inside,” moreover, can be more productive than merely staying in the
philanthropic sphere. In terms of American politics, the analogue would be
moving from the Green Party, for instance, to the Democratic Party so as to
work toward reform that could actually manifest in legislation. Admittedly,
idealism is tested in such a strategy, but consequentialism tells us that even
50% of 10 is more than 0% of 10.
1. David Gelles, “An
Activist for the Poor Joins Pepsi’s Board. Is That Ethical?,” The New York Times, October 28, 2016.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
