Woolworths’ Business-First Approach to Australia Day Merchandising Sparks Debate

Woolworths, one of Australia’s largest grocery chains, has sparked debate with its business-first approach to Australia Day merchandising. Earlier this month, Woolworths announced that it would no longer stock merchandise promoting Australia Day on January 26, a date surrounded by controversy. While observed as a national public holiday for more than 90 years, a recent survey found that 55% of Australians support changing the date.

Woolworths’ decision to distance itself from Australia Day merchandise follows similar moves by other retailers such as Aldi and Kmart. These companies have also chosen not to sell Australia-themed products under their Special Buys promotions. Many corporations, including ANZ, Telstra, and Woodside, have encouraged their employees to take an alternative day off, shifting away from celebrating the date as Australia Day.

What sets Woolworths apart is its defense of the decision as primarily a business one. This approach raises questions about whether big retailers are avoiding Australia Day merchandise for business reasons rather than solely social ones. Opposition leader Peter Dutton has labeled the move as “virtue signaling,” but a Woolworths spokesperson cited a decline in demand for Australia Day-themed products and acknowledged the broader discussion of January 26th’s significance to different communities.

Woolworths’ decision to make a business case for corporate activism is rooted in the concerns of conservative shareholders who believe businesses should “stay in their lane” when it comes to social justice issues. Research has shown that a brand’s activist position can harm shareholder returns, as investors view it as a misallocation of resources that threatens profit maximization, particularly for businesses with large market shares.

By presenting its decision as a profit-maximizing move rather than an overtly activist one, Woolworths likely appeases shareholders. Customers, on the other hand, are increasingly discerning about corporate activism and require meaningful actions beyond marketing rhetoric. In this case, Woolworths’ decision was interpreted by the public as a subtle form of activism, sparking debate and grandstanding.

While Woolworths focused on the business aspect rather than explicitly supporting First Nations peoples, the public’s interpretation of the decision demonstrated a desire for companies to address sociopolitical issues. However, this approach can also be seen as “activism without activism,” as the company operated behind the curtain of dollars and cents.

Woolworths’ decision to refrain from capitalizing on the “Australia Day” term and imagery in its marketing and merchandise is a concrete action, albeit falling short of full corporate sociopolitical activism. This move may also serve to deflect attention from other issues the company is facing, such as price gouging and ongoing inquiries into its practices by regulatory bodies.

Woolworths’ approach to activism warrants further examination. While the company has shown support for initiatives like the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement from the Heart, its recent decision misses an opportunity to elevate the brand and promote the reconciliation movement. By framing their decision as profit-maximizing and focusing on market dynamics, Woolworths may have effectively navigated shareholder concerns but missed the chance to fully embrace and respect Indigenous Australians.