Books For Execs: Amid DEI Backlash, NYU Prof Makes Business Case For Human Rights

Mike Posner, Jerome Kohlber Professor of Ethics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, authored a new book that makes the case on why businesses should protect human rights in their strategies and operations. Courtesy photo

Six months ago, as Mike Posner finished the writing on his latest book, the U.S. Presidential elections were still very much unsettled. Vice President Kamala Harris officially entered the race on July 21, energizing Democrats who had largely resigned themselves to defeat.

Fast forward a few short months.

By the time Posner’s book, “Conscience Incorporated: Pursue Profits While Protecting Human Rights,” hit the shelves last month, president re-elect Donald Trump was already promising a newer, harsher crackdown on DEI policies – both in the federal government and in organizations, like universities, who take federal money.

He made good on his promise on his very first day in office.

Since his inauguration on January 20, Trump has signed at least three executive orders ending DEI programs in the federal government, for federal contractors, and in the U.S. military.

Meanwhile, several major U.S. brands have announced intentions to scale down their DEI initiatives since the election. These include retail giants such as Target and Walmart, and manufacturers like Boeing and Ford Motor Company. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg – in addition to announcing an end to Facebook fact checkers – ended its DEI programs around hiring, training and supplier diversity.

This is the American business environment in which Posner’s book makes the case for the vital importance of integrating human rights into corporate strategy.

“I imagine there are many C-suite conversations happening right now about these exact issues,” says Posner, the Jerome Kohlber Professor of Ethics at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

“For companies operating globally, these issues aren’t going away. They aren’t dependent on one election cycle or another … Leaders of big global businesses have two choices: they can avert attention and prioritize short-term gains, or they can think about what it means to run a company that’s prepared for the future. That means building systems to address these challenges responsibly.”

P&Q INTERVIEW WITH MIKE POSNER

In 2013, Posner founded Stern’s Center for Business and Human Rights, the world’s first such center to be positioned inside a business school.

At a time when many American businesses are pulling away from human rights concerns generally and DEI specifically, Posner’s book explores how businesses can address inherent human rights challenges while remaining profitable and competitive. He draws on real-world examples and his 11 years at NYU to advocate for long-term, ethical decision-making over short-term gains.

Poets&Quants recently spoke with Posner about his book, its timing, and the responsibility of business schools to prepare future leaders for the complexities of operating responsibly in a globalized world. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Let’s begin with the inspiration for “Conscience Incorporated.” Why did you feel this book was necessary to write at this time?

I’ve been at NYU Stern for 11 years, where I built the first center on business and human rights at a business school. This book is, in many ways, a distillation of our experiences and our commitment to the idea that we are pro-business but also want high standards. Businesses can and should be part of the solution to the challenges we face.

Companies need to make a profit and remain competitive. But business leaders also need to keep their eyes open to the inherent challenges in how they make money. The book explores the idea that, whether in manufacturing, fishing, farming, mining, construction, or tech, human rights challenges come with the business model. Instead of looking the other way, companies should be mindful of these challenges and find practical, realistic ways to address them while asserting responsibility for their actions.

The concept of “conscience” refers to the moral or ethical ability to distinguish right from wrong. Good business leaders, in my judgment, are those who can make judgments based on what’s right and wrong and then act accordingly to ensure their companies operate responsibly.

Mike Posner, founder and director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU

What are some standout examples of companies that are doing this, maybe even a surprising example?

There are many companies that have shown strong leadership on these issues. Part of the book celebrates companies that do the right thing, even when it may mean losing a business opportunity in the short term.

Some examples are easier to understand, like Patagonia, which is essentially a family-owned company that has become almost a nonprofit. They put significant resources into environmental causes. While commendable, it’s somewhat expected given their structure. On the other hand, larger companies like Microsoft or Apple operate in highly competitive spaces with complex relationships but still manage to make unexpected, ethical decisions.

Take Microsoft, for example. A few years ago, they acquired LinkedIn. LinkedIn was under heavy pressure from the Chinese government, particularly regarding its social media component. Microsoft made the business decision to turn LinkedIn China into a resume-only service, effectively stepping away from potential business opportunities. They publicly stated that the governmental and business environment in China made it impossible to operate the social media side of the platform.

Microsoft also decided, about eight years ago, to stop selling facial recognition technology to police. They acknowledged that the technology wasn’t yet reliable, performing better for white men like me but less so for women and people of color. They argued that this wasn’t an area where they should be contributing until the technology and its use were more fully developed in collaboration with industry and government. These are long-term, ethical business judgments by a successful company that could have chosen the easier path for a slightly higher profit.

Another example is Coca-Cola. When Deval Patrick became general counsel, Coca-Cola faced significant controversy regarding its bottling plant in Colombia, where two union leaders were killed on the factory floor. This led to a public campaign in the U.S., and Coca-Cola products were banned from 100 universities. Patrick took a stand, ultimately resigning from the company over the issue.

His stance helped prompt leadership changes at Coca-Cola, including the hiring of Ed Potter, who had a labor background. Potter established a unit within Coca-Cola to oversee the well-being of workers in bottling plants worldwide. He hired his own team and reported directly to the CEO. That’s what leadership looks like – prioritizing ethical practices and actively working to improve how business is conducted.

Your book comes at an interesting time, in light of the re-election of Donald Trump. Do you think companies are pulling back on progress made, or are U.S. companies continuing to move ahead on their human rights goals?

I completed the book six months ago, so it’s not focused on our recent election. I don’t think the word “Trump” even appears in the book – I’d have to do a word search to confirm that. That said, I have no doubt that companies will feel compelled to back off on some of the things I write about. The social part of ESG investing, DEI initiatives – these are areas where the new administration has come in strongly and said, “We don’t believe in this.” Companies with government contracts or those regulated by the government will be looking over their shoulders, wondering what this means for them.

New York University Stern School of Business

However, there’s countervailing pressure from Europe. Over the last five years, Europe has introduced a range of new regulations, some already in effect, others coming into effect in the next year or two, that apply to large companies doing business there. If you’re General Motors, Tesla, Walmart, or any other big company with a European presence, these laws apply to you. For instance, companies selling products in Germany are subject to the German supply chain law. Tech companies face the Digital Services Act, the AI Act, or the Due Diligence Directive, which all 27 EU member states will have to adopt into local legislation.

For companies operating globally, these issues aren’t going away. They aren’t dependent on one election cycle or another. We’re in the 21st century, an era of globalization. Leaders of big global businesses have two choices: they can avert attention and prioritize short-term gains, or they can think about what it means to run a company that’s prepared for the future. That means building systems to address these challenges responsibly.

I imagine there are many C-suite conversations happening right now about these exact issues. My job – and the job of business educators – is to prepare students for these challenges. I tell my students that there aren’t always clear right or wrong answers, but I want them to consider the questions and challenges.

There’s talk about shifting the discussion from doing the right thing for good’s sake, to making the business case that it’s also profitable. Is that as true for human rights as it might be for areas like climate change?

It’s a good question. Honestly, it’s much harder for human rights. What I tell business leaders – and my students – is that if your metric is return on investment for the next quarter, I’m not going to help you. What I’m saying is that to be a good, strong, sustainable, and responsible company, these are things you need to address in the long term.

Focusing on human rights will benefit companies over time. You’ll recruit better talent, improve retention rates, and be prepared for a world where these issues are getting increasing public attention and more regulation, particularly from Europe. The key is to prepare now, be ahead of the curve, and not wait until it’s too late.

That said, I can’t promise – and it wouldn’t be honest to claim – that doing this will boost your return on investment between now and June. That’s not the case I’m making. But these actions are essential for building a company ready to thrive in the future.

What are some of the obstacles companies face when trying to implement better human rights practices, and what are some of the proposals in the book to address these challenges?

One of the central points of the book is that different industries face different human rights challenges, so it’s important to avoid generalizations. For example, the challenges in agriculture, farming, or fishing differ significantly from those in manufacturing, mining, or construction – particularly in regions like the Gulf, where migrant labor is prevalent. The book focuses on breaking these challenges down, moving away from abstraction, and identifying specific human rights issues within each industry. From there, it explores how to establish industry standards and metrics to achieve better outcomes.

This isn’t about having a sustainability committee, publishing a CSR report, or checking boxes. It’s about understanding how a company makes money and what it means to do so responsibly. Take electric vehicle batteries as an example. The batteries that power EVs and provide a 300-mile range require cobalt to prevent them from catching fire. Around 80% of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. While much of this mining is mechanized, 20 to 25% comes from artisanal mines – informal sites next to large mechanized operations. Families, including children, dig in unsafe conditions, and there are an estimated 25,000 children working in these mines.

One initiative highlighted in the book is a pilot project by a Swiss trading company, Trafigura, which sought to formalize these artisanal mines. Though currently suspended due to challenges in the Congo, the project aimed to improve safety, prevent child labor, and empower women to work in mines where cultural superstitions previously excluded them. By increasing income for families, this also enabled more children to attend school. While it’s a business-smart approach, it requires upfront investment and long-term commitment.

Similar examples exist in farming, fishing, and construction, but they all require companies to recognize the problems tied to their business models and take responsibility.

The book argues that human rights should become a measurable business priority, just like return on investment, worker retention, or productivity. When businesses care about something, they measure it and improve. Human rights need to be treated with the same seriousness, ensuring that outcomes and performance guide decision-making rather than superficial gestures like filling out forms or opening offices.

What kind of movement have you seen during your time at NYU and with the center you created? Are more businesses moving toward human rights work? What does that trend look like to you?

It’s not a linear trend. There are certainly more companies today than 10, 15, or 20 years ago that recognize the relevance of human rights issues. In fact, I think businesses are often ahead of business schools in understanding this. But finding the right path is challenging, and it’s especially difficult to lead in this area if you’re standing alone.

One example I discuss in the book is the creation of the Fair Labor Association, which I’ve chaired in my spare time. It began 25 years ago during the Clinton administration, with Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s support. It brought together stakeholders from the apparel industry, unions, NGOs, and universities – groups with significant dissent and anxiety about the process. Despite the odds, it survived. Today, the Fair Labor Association includes 60 apparel companies, along with big agriculture companies in a second wave.

We’ve developed standards, metrics, and ongoing assessments for evaluation. Companies like Adidas, Nike, Lululemon, and L’Oréal are part of it. They’re taking risks by exposing themselves to greater scrutiny, but they understand that it makes them better in the long run. To me, that’s the model – whether it’s a multi-stakeholder voluntary initiative like the Fair Labor Association or the government-led efforts we’re now seeing in Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

The key is establishing industry standards, real metrics, meaningful evaluation, and accountability.

When you say that businesses are ahead of business schools in this regard, who is your book for? Is it for aspiring C-suite leaders, business professors, or MBAs? Who do you think benefits most?

All of the above. Part of the book is written with business leaders in mind, as I know many are struggling with these issues – they often reach out to me. I wanted to provide them with practical examples and illustrations of what has worked and why. Each chapter includes a “way forward” section with lessons learned and recommendations.

But the book is also aimed at business educators and students. I’m planning a tour of around 15 business schools across the U.S. and Europe to engage with students and faculty, encouraging them to incorporate these ideas. You don’t necessarily need to create a dedicated center like we have at NYU, with nine or ten people focused on this work. It might fit into an operations class, a supply chain class, or even a finance class.

We’ve also created a network of business schools – primarily European but with participants in the U.S. and the developing world. This is a subject for 21st-century business educators, and I’ve found students are interested – not all of them, but those who take my class find it eye-opening. In some ways, it’s like teaching business ethics or professional responsibility, but it goes far beyond that. This isn’t about preaching morality or encouraging people to emulate figures like Martin Luther King or Mother Teresa. It’s a practical subject about how businesses operate, the challenges they face, and what they can do to mitigate, mediate, or even eliminate risks in some cases.

You mentioned how new technology, like ChatGPT, can both exacerbate and help solve human rights issues. Are there any examples you’d like to highlight?

We’ve probably done more work in the tech space than in any other sector. As you said, the opportunities are immense. For example, I recently spent five days in Davos at the World Economic Forum, and you couldn’t walk 50 feet without hearing about exciting new dimensions of AI. Companies like Palantir, Accenture, Amazon, Google, and Meta were all showcasing their innovations. The current zeitgeist is all about the transformative potential of generative AI, chat technology, and beyond.

I’m convinced that technology will bring about many positive changes. But part of our job is to ask: What does this mean for democracy? What does it mean when harmful content is embedded in social media platforms and AI applications? There are too many individuals exploiting these technologies for nefarious purposes. The challenge is getting big tech companies to oversee their systems in ways that address these problems while upholding free speech.

I believe in open debate, but there are limits – we shouldn’t be debating whether the Holocaust happened, whether bullying a young girl in school is acceptable, or whether violent extremism should be promoted. Right now, we’re at a dangerous point where technology has outpaced our ability to regulate or establish guardrails.

The solution involves a combination of companies stepping up to take more responsibility and governments figuring out their role. European governments are ahead of the U.S. in addressing these issues, and I expect significant discussions about the future of the information technology environment over the next decade. Things are changing quickly, and there are valid reasons to be anxious about where we’re headed.

Since we last talked, have there been any interesting developments with the Center For Human Rights and Business? 

There are two areas of progress I’m particularly proud of. First, one of my colleagues, Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat, conducted a report on the gaming world. While I’m not a gamer, 3 billion people are involved in gaming and its adjacent chat sites. Some of these chat rooms are rife with misogyny, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and violent extremism. Several mass killings, like those in Christchurch, Buffalo, and Highland Park, were perpetrated by individuals who had been active in these spaces.

Initially, companies were defensive, claiming this wasn’t their responsibility since the conversations were private. But we argued that these were private conversations happening on their platforms, their “real estate,” so they needed to take some responsibility. Marianna has since formed a coalition of companies, academics, government representatives, and NGOs to address the problem. It’s early days, but the goal is to collaborate across sectors to determine what actions the industry and government can take. I believe we’ll make real progress here.

The second area involves a year-and-a-half-long project with Amazon, Google, and Microsoft on privacy issues in cloud computing. Cloud services have become a significant revenue source, and all three companies recognized the need for privacy principles. Specifically, they wanted to prevent their sales teams from offering competitors’ accounts greater access to individual data in places like Saudi Arabia. The result was a two-page statement of principles outlining how they’ll approach privacy issues. It’s far from solving the problem, but it was an acknowledgment from three major companies that this issue matters. It also served to guide their employees internally, as much as the rest of the world.

You also emphasized the importance of integrating human rights into business education when we last connected. Have you seen any movement on that? 

Seven years ago, my colleague at the University of Geneva, Dorothée Baumann-Pauly, and I started an annual meeting with professors – and sometimes deans – interested in human rights. We’ve held this meeting every year since, and now we have participation from about 70 schools in 35 countries. Dorothée has since created a center at the University of Geneva Management School and continues to collaborate with us.

We’re also working with the Global Business School Network, which includes over 150 business schools worldwide. Through their Human Rights Initiative, we’re coordinating efforts to promote these ideas. There’s a lot of interest, especially among younger professors entering the field who are eager to engage with this topic.

That said, not every school needs to create a dedicated center like NYU did. There are plenty of ways to integrate human rights into existing courses – management, organizational behavior, tech, supply chain, and finance. It doesn’t even have to be a standalone course. For instance, in a supply chain course, which typically focuses on bottlenecks and logistics, why not spend a couple of hours discussing the workers in those supply chains?

We’ve developed a toolkit that provides examples of curricula, topics, and case studies to help educators incorporate these concepts. On the case study front, I’ve written about a dozen for my courses. Interestingly, someone at the International Labor Organization shared them with the University of Qatar Business School in Doha. Three professors there decided, “If they can do this at NYU, why can’t we?”

Last September, I spent a week in Doha working with them after months of collaboration. They’re now finalizing six to nine case studies focused on the Gulf, written in both Arabic and English. If this can happen in Qatar, there’s no reason it can’t happen at Wharton, Harvard, or Stanford. It’s all about finding ways to engage educators and students on these critical issues.

Would you say you’re optimistic about the direction business is heading in regarding human rights?

I am a chronic optimist. I’ve worked in human rights for decades, and my optimism doesn’t come from ignoring the challenges – I see them quite clearly. But I also see the inevitability of these issues becoming too important to ignore. More and more businesses are recognizing that they need to address these concerns. This isn’t going away.

Investment houses are also catching on. Women, millennials, and Gen Z – the next generation of investors – care more about these issues than older generations, including people like me. So, one way or another, these topics are rising to the surface.

I firmly believe we can demonstrate that businesses can make a profit, remain financially successful, and still do the right thing regarding human rights. It requires a long-term view and a recognition that progress won’t always be linear. But I’m confident the message of the book – that this can and must be done – will resonate. It’s critical that addressing these issues becomes a business priority, and just as important for business schools to recognize their role in preparing future leaders to tackle them.

DON’T MISS: GRADS OF THIS UNIQUE PROGRAM LEAVE WITH A MASTER’S — AND A STARTUP AND THE P&Q INTERVIEW: HIMANSHU RAI, DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT INDORE