The police killing of George Floyd brought pervasive racial inequality to the national forefront. Attention turned to policing tactics and policies that cause harm in communities of color and re-entrench racial inequity – and companies took notice. Many corporations expressed solidarity with the Black community and committed to address racial inequality. Despite this, many continue partnerships with law enforcement and remain complicit in practices that further criminalize communities of color.
For long-term investors, these partnerships pose potential civil and human rights risks as well as financial, reputational, and human capital risks that could adversely affect shareholder value. Consumer-facing companies like Target are especially vulnerable.
Like others, Target made public statements committing to use its size, scale, and resources to support racial equity. This included establishing a committee that, among other things, will engage policymakers on police reform. However, Target continues its partnerships with law enforcement, providing both legitimacy and funding for practices that can exacerbate racial inequity.
The Safe City program received negative press given its potentially harmful impacts on communities of color. The program contributed to the expansion of local surveillance networks, which the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression noted “can interfere with human rights.” In addition, evidence suggests the program shifted policing tactics in some cities from a focus on violent crime to low-level offenses, which can increase race-based economic burdens and further criminalize poverty.
Target now states that it ended its Safe City program in 2015; however, it continues partnerships with law enforcement. For example, it operates a Forensic Services Laboratory that provides free services to police. Target also directs charitable giving to police foundations across the country, and several of its senior staff hold leadership positions at these foundations. Police foundations allow local law enforcement to circumvent the public budgeting process and can enable them to purchase weapons and surveillance equipment. Experts note that these foundations can allow wealthy donors and corporations to influence law enforcement agencies. Target employees and contractors say the company has not been transparent about the potentially inequitable impact these investments have in the communities in which it operates.
Policing partnerships may also hurt Target’s ability to maintain good relations with employees and customers. For instance, over 3,000 people petitioned Target to “immediately cease its funding of police foundations and its Safe Cities program.” As employees have noted, if Target and others want to create safer communities, they can have a more profound impact by paying living wages, investing in benefits and providing stable and secure employment – not policing.
While Target is one example of the collaboration between corporate power and policing, other companies, including Amazon and Coca-Cola, also partner with law enforcement. In the absence of a total pause on these programs, we are asking for more transparency about expenditures related to policing and public safety. Companies like Target – and their investors – would be better served by corporate giving that supports local infrastructure, with investment in employees to build strong, thriving, and resilient communities.
Vanessa Bain
Co-Founder, Gig Workers’ Collective
Rachel Fagiano
Associate Program Officer, Racial and Economic Justice, Nathan Cummings Foundation
Willy Solis
Shipt Shopper, Gig Workers’ Collective Organizer