Boycotts

Latest story

88 Shares179 Views

Unions in Sweden Expand Blockade Against Tesla

by

The LatestElectricians and dockworkers across Sweden on Friday joined a widening effort by unions in the country to pressure Tesla to sign a collective bargaining agreement with its mechanics.The labor action expanded three weeks after the autoworkers’ union, IF Metall, called a strike against Tesla in an effort to secure a collective arrangement over pay and working conditions for its roughly 120 members who work as mechanics for the electric vehicle maker. In the latest move, dockworkers at dozens of ports refused to unload cars from ships and electricians stopped repair work at the company’s charging stations, highlighting the power of organized labor in a country where collective agreements cover nine in 10 of all employees.Port workers blocking a ship from loading Tesla vehicles onto a ship moored at the port of Malmo in Sweden, in early November.Johan Nilsson/TT News Agency, via Associated PressTesla in Sweden: No production but many sales.Tesla does not produce any vehicles in Sweden, but runs several facilities where the cars are serviced. So far this year, the Tesla Model Y is the best-selling new car in Sweden, with more than 14,000 registrations through October, according to Mobility Sweden, an industry group.At the outset of the mechanics’ strike, a Tesla representative told Swedish media that the company followed labor laws in the country, and that it chose not to sign a collective agreement. The company said it would do what it could to keep its business operating.Quotable: ‘It is both important and obvious that we help.’The Swedish Transport Workers’ Union, whose members work at Sweden’s docks, said in a statement that “it is both important and obvious that we help, to stand up for the collective agreement and the Swedish labor market model.”How It Started: Mechanics at Tesla went on strike on Oct. 27.In late October, IF Metall, which represents 300,000 workers in Sweden, including some of Tesla’s mechanics, said talks with company representatives had ended without resolution. The union began the strike action at Tesla’s 12 service centers on Oct. 27.Dockworkers initially refused to unload any Teslas at four major Swedish ports starting on Nov. 7, which on Friday expanded to 55 ports.Unions representing cleaners have also refused to service Tesla facilities, and the postal workers’ union stopped any deliveries from reaching the company’s sites.Both IF Metall and the Transport Workers’ Union have acknowledged that Tesla has found ways around the strikes. Tesla appeared to be bringing in other mechanics to staff its facilities and bringing new vehicles into Sweden by truck, they said.The strike efforts have also been hampered by some union members who work for Tesla and refused to join, Swedish media have reported.What Other Unions Say: Germans have voiced support.In Germany, where Tesla produces the Model Y at a gigafactory outside Berlin, union leaders have been seeking to organize the roughly 11,500 employees who work there. Tesla’s leadership has not engaged with the German autoworkers’ union, IG Metall. Last month, several hundred workers wore union stickers calling for “safe and fair work.”Dirk Schulze, the regional head of IG Metall in Brandenburg, where Tesla has its factory, has expressed his solidarity with the striking workers in Sweden. The strike in Sweden has given workers in Germany “the courage and confidence to organize themselves into a union and take their fate into their own hands,” Mr. Schulze said in a statement.The union has not announced any further measures.What Happens Next: More strikes are planned in Sweden.This week, IF Metall said 50 of its members at Hydro Extrusions, a company that produces an aluminum component for Tesla, would walk off their jobs next Friday. More

More stories

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Some Businesses Make ‘Woke Free’ a Selling Point

    by

    A number of companies — from clothing to pet care — are trying to appeal to customers who think corporate America is pushing a liberal agenda.Jonathan Isaac is a forward for the National Basketball Association’s Orlando Magic, but he is perhaps better known as someone who chose not to protest police brutality against Black Americans during a summer of widespread activism involving racial injustice.Mr. Isaac, who is Black, turned that singular moment in July 2020 — when he decided not to join many other N.B.A. players in kneeling during the national anthem as the league restarted in a Covid “bubble” setting in Orlando, Fla. — into a platform as a conservative political activist. In 2022, he spoke at a rally of Christian nationalists and anti-vaccine Americans and wrote a book about why he did not join the protest. This year, he started Unitus, an apparel company centered on “faith, family and freedom.”“I wanted my values to be represented in the marketplace, especially when it came to sports and leisure wear,” Mr. Isaac said in an interview.Most companies used to do everything they could to avoid political controversies and, by extension, risk alienating potential customers. No longer. Seemingly everything in the United States is political now, including where you shop for socks and leggings.Companies like Anheuser-Busch and Target have recently faced backlash from the right over marketing and advertising decisions that were seen as a liberal Trojan horse: Anheuser-Busch for a transgender influencer’s promotion of Bud Light and Target for its Pride Month displays.Bud Light faced fierce backlash after the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney promoted the beer.Evan Agostini/Associated PressUnitus is one of a growing number of companies — from clothing retailers to pet care businesses — trying to appeal to those who have recoiled from what they see as corporate America pushing a progressive, liberal agenda. Unitus is featured on PublicSq., an online marketplace aimed at promoting companies it calls “pro-life,” “pro-family” and “pro-freedom.” PublicSq. began in July 2022 and now has more than 65,000 small businesses on its platform, noting a spike in numbers after the Bud Light and Target disputes.The platform offers “a nice, refreshing sort of break” from companies that have voiced more progressive views, said Michael Seifert, the founder and chief executive of PublicSq., mentioning businesses like Target, Ben & Jerry’s and Bank of America.Since Donald J. Trump was elected president in 2016, large corporations have faced heightened scrutiny — both from potential customers and their own employees — concerning their values. This includes everything from how companies publicly reacted to policies like Mr. Trump’s ban on immigration from several Muslim-majority countries to political donations by companies or their top executives.In turn, many companies made public declarations in support of diversity and inclusion. In 2018, Nike teamed up on an ad campaign with the former N.F.L. player Colin Kaepernick, who had started a movement of athletes kneeling to protest police brutality against Black Americans. After a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in 2020, many companies pledged financial support to and released statements of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2022, proposed legislation in Florida that opponents viewed as anti-L.G.B.T.Q. faced corporate resistance.Tracy Rank-Christman, a professor of marketing at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said the more leftward turn of some major companies in the mainstream could be driving away those with more conservative views.“Some of these consumers are essentially having either a boycott or backlash to these brands that are engaging in behaviors that do not align with their values,” said Ms. Rank-Christman, who studies consumer psychology.Nike built an ad campaign around Colin Kaepernick in 2018, after he became known for his protests against police violence.Alba Vigaray/EPA, via ShutterstockTarget faced protests from some on the right this year for merchandise it included in its Pride Month displays.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesWhat’s driving the backlash is nothing new. According to research from Ms. Rank-Christman and other academics, consumers with what are known as “stigmatized identities” often take collective action against a company that they feel is attacking that identity. It has happened in the past with companies like Chick-fil-A, which drew criticism from the left for its support of conservative causes. In this case, Ms. Rank-Christman said, that identity is on the political right.Those same views, however, are squarely within the mainstream on PublicSq. Mr. Seifert said that most businesses on the platform did not explicitly state their views, but that every business was required to check a box and sign a commitment to PublicSq.’s core principles. They include a belief in “the greatness of this nation,” a vow to protect “the family unit” and celebrate “the sanctity of life,” and a belief that “small businesses and the communities who support them are the backbone” of the economy.What’s most important, Mr. Seifert said, is that businesses on the platform don’t antagonize “traditional values” in the way he said some large corporations have.Still, some companies on the platform promote their conservative bona fides more emphatically than others.Kevin Jones is the manager of Tiny Dog, an e-commerce pet supply business that he runs with his wife, Myra, out of Kingsport, Tenn. Mr. Jones said in an interview that he had been planning to work with another pet supplier in the state to expand his business, but that he had balked after it asked him for his stance on “the whole woke agenda.” That experience persuaded him to join PublicSq., he said, and market pet products to people who shared his values.Tiny Dog features no political or social messaging on its website, but Mr. Jones said his company didn’t “cater to alternative lifestyles.” He also said Tiny Dog had received a significant uptick in interest since it joined PublicSq.Others on the platform don’t necessarily view themselves as being conservative or catering to a particular political ideology. Mike Ritland, who founded a company that offers goods and training for dogs and is on PublicSq., said he didn’t think of his company as “anti-woke,” even though the platform calls itself that. He said he just wanted a way to increase his business.But for the companies that cater to consumers who share their conservative values, it doesn’t matter if they turn away more liberal buyers, or ones who just don’t want to see “100% Woke-Free American Beer” when they crack open a cold one, as is the case with Ultra Right Beer.In the short run, these companies know they’re targeting a niche market, said CB Bhattacharya, a professor at the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh. They are concerned less about maximizing profit and more about standing by their values. For a company that’s genuinely concerned about catering to consumers who oppose abortion, for example, the bottom line may not be paramount.“Even if it is just reds versus blues, they’re already slicing the market in half, and they’re saying, ‘Well, we don’t even care about the blues,’” Mr. Bhattacharya said.But whether these companies are sustainable in the long run is a more complicated calculus. A company whose business model depends on politically disaffected consumers is subject to constantly shifting political winds, as much as it is to supply-chain issues.Ultra Right Beer is selling a limited edition can with former President Donald J. Trump’s mug shot.Ultra Right BeerSome on the left have boycotted Chick-fil-A because of its owners’ conservative views, but that hasn’t hurt the chain.Erik S. Lesser/European Pressphoto AgencyThe energy that fuels consumers to boycott offending companies, and seek alternatives, also tends to be fleeting. According to Mr. Bhattacharya’s research, the prominent boycotts of Chick-fil-A (by liberals) and Starbucks (by conservatives) in 2012 didn’t hurt those companies. In fact, sales increased, perhaps owing to the energizing of consumers who supported those companies’ stances.An issue driving consumers to seek alternatives may also lose political salience, forcing businesses that have made it part of their appeal to change their approach. Nooshin Warren, a professor of marketing at the University of Arizona, said that if L.G.B.T.Q. rights became less politicized and more accepted across the country, conservative companies would have to rethink their strategy.Another problem is that some issues important to conservative consumers, such as not buying goods made in China, run up against economic reality. Mr. Seifert said each business on PublicSq. is asked to make its products in the United States or to get as many of its products as possible from there, but he acknowledged that manufacturing in China is necessary for some.A spokeswoman for Unitus said in an email that it made its products in Peru and Bangladesh, but that it was “committed to never sourcing Unitus products from China.”For Mr. Isaac’s part, he hopes Unitus becomes a leader in producing sleek and comfortable apparel and champions his core values: “faith, family and freedom,” which, he said, are “under assault” by mainstream corporations.“Unitus is, for me, giving people that encouragement to say: ‘No, I stand for these values. These values are important to me. And now I can wear them in a stylish, high-quality way,’” Mr. Isaac said. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Disney, Built on Fairy Tales and Fantasy, Confronts the Real World

    by

    The entertainment behemoth spent decades avoiding even the whiff of controversy. But it has increasingly been drawn into the partisan political fray.Since its founding in 1923, Disney has stood alone in Hollywood in one fundamental way: Its family-friendly movies, television shows and theme park rides, at least in theory, have always been aimed at everybody, with potential political and cultural pitfalls zealously avoided.The Disney brand is about wishing on stars and finding true love and living happily ever after. In case the fairy tale castles are too subtle, Disney theme parks outright promise an escape from reality with welcome signs that read, “Here you leave today and enter the world of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy.”Lately, however, real world ugliness has been creeping into the Magic Kingdom. In this hyperpartisan moment, both sides of the political divide have been pounding on Disney, endangering one of the world’s best-known brands — one that, for many, symbolizes America itself — as it tries to navigate a rapidly changing entertainment industry.In some cases, Disney has willingly waded into cultural issues. Last summer, to applause from progressives and snarls from the far right, Disney decided to make loudspeaker announcements at its theme parks gender neutral, removing “ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” in favor of “dreamers of all ages.” But the entertainment giant has also found itself dragged into the fray, as with the recent imbroglio over a new Florida law that among many things restricts classroom instruction through third grade on sexual orientation and gender identity and has been labeled by opponents as “Don’t Say Gay.”At first, Disney tried not to take a side on the legislation, at least publicly, which prompted an employee revolt. Disney then aggressively denounced the bill — only to find itself in the cross hairs of Fox News hosts and Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, who sent a fund-raising email to supporters saying that “Woke Disney” had “lost any moral authority to tell you what to do.” Florida lawmakers began threatening to revoke a 55-year-old law that enables Walt Disney World to essentially function as its own municipal government. (Disney had already been at odds with the governor on pandemic issues like a vaccine mandate for employees.)In trying to offend no one, Disney had seemingly lost everyone.Disney employees and supporters, at a park in Burbank, Calif., last month, protested Disney’s reaction to a new law in Florida.J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times“The mission for the Disney brand has always been really clear: Do nothing that might upset or confuse the family audience,” said Martin Kaplan, the Norman Lear professor of entertainment, media and society at the University of Southern California and a former Walt Disney Studios executive. “Fun for all. Nothing objectionable. Let’s all be transformed by the magic wand. But we are so divided today, so revved up, that even Disney is having a hard time bringing us together.”Avoiding socially divisive topics, of course, in itself reflects a certain worldview. The Walt Disney Company’s namesake founder, after all, was an anti-union conservative. Main Street U.S.A. patriotism is on prominent display at Disney’s theme parks. The traditional Christmas story is told each December at Disney World in Florida and Disneyland in California with Candlelight Processional events, Bible verses and all.It took the company until 2009 to introduce a Black princess.But in recent years, there has been a noticeable change. Robert A. Iger, who served as chief executive from 2005 to 2020, pushed the world’s largest entertainment company to emphasize diverse casting and storytelling. As he said at Disney’s 2017 shareholder meeting, referring to inclusion and equality: “We can take those values, which we deem important societally, and actually change people’s behavior — get people to be more accepting of the multiple differences and cultures and races and all other facets of our lives and our people.”In essence, entertainment as advocacy.Mr. Iger was the one who pushed forward the global blockbuster “Black Panther,” which had an almost entirely Black cast and a powerful Afrocentric story line. Under his tenure, Disney refocused the “Star Wars” franchise around female characters. A parade of animated movies (“Moana,” “Coco,” “Raya and the Last Dragon,” “Soul,” “Encanto”) showcased a wide variety of races, cultures and ethnicities.Read More on the Walt Disney CompanyDisney World: Celebrations for the theme park’s 50th anniversary are underway. The company hopes they will help with its pandemic recovery.‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill: Amid employee walkouts and official statements, Disney has become entangled in a battle over the Florida legislation.Streaming: As it faces pressure to keep its streaming business growing, the company announced a cheaper, ad-supported version of Disney+.A Documentary: A movie directed by the granddaughter of one of the Disney founders offered a harsh portrait of pay inequality at the company.The result, for the most part, has been one hit after another. But a swath of Disney’s audience has pushed back.Robert A. Iger, center, Disney’s chief executive from 2005 to 2020, pushed the company to emphasize diverse casting and storytelling.Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images“Eternals,” a $200 million Disney-Marvel movie, was “review bombed” in the fall because it depicted a gay superhero kissing his husband, with online trolls flooding the Internet Movie Database with hundreds of homophobic one-star reviews. In January, Disney was accused by the actor Peter Dinklage and others of trafficking in stereotypes by moving forward with a live-action “Snow White” movie — until it was revealed that the company planned to replace the seven dwarfs with digitally created “magical creatures,” which, in turn, prompted complaints by others about the “erasure” of people with dwarfism.Disney executives tend to dismiss such incidents as tempests in teapots: trending today, replaced by a new complaint tomorrow. But even moderate online storms can be a distraction inside the company. Meetings are held about how and whether to respond; fretful talent partners must be reassured.As Disney prepared to introduce its streaming service in 2019, it began an extensive review of its film library. As part of the initiative, called Stories Matter, Disney added disclaimers to content that the company determined included “negative depictions or mistreatment of people or cultures.” Examples included episodes of “The Muppet Show” from the 1970s and the 1941 version of “Dumbo.”“These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now,” the disclaimers read.The Stories Matter team privately flagged other characters as potentially problematic, with the findings distributed to senior Disney leaders, according to two current Disney executives, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential information. Ursula, the villainous sea witch from “The Little Mermaid” (1989), was one. Her dark color palette (lavender skin, black legs) could be viewed through a racial lens, the Stories Matter team cautioned; she is also a “queer coded” character, with mannerisms inspired in part by those of a real-life drag queen.Tinker Bell was marked for caution because she is “body conscious” and jealous of Peter Pan’s attention, according to the executives, while Captain Hook could expose Disney to accusations of discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities because he is a villain.At least some people inside Disney are concerned that such sensitivities go too far. One of the executives worried that looking at artistic creations through a “politically correct filter” could chill creativity.Disney declined to comment for this article.All of this comes at a perilous time for Disney, which is racing to remake itself as a streaming titan as technology giants like Amazon and Apple move deeper into the entertainment business and traditional cable networks like Disney-owned ESPN slowly wither. Disney is also coping with a disruptive changing of the guard, with Mr. Iger stepping down as executive chairman in December.Mr. Iger occasionally spoke out on hot-button political issues during his time as chief executive. His successor, Bob Chapek, decided (with backing from the Disney board) to avoid weighing in on state political battles. Disney lobbyists would continue to work behind the scenes, however, as they did with the Florida legislation.Bob Chapek, Disney’s chief executive, was met with employee protests and then a right-wing backlash after he avoided publicly weighing in on the new Florida law.Chris Pizzello/Invision, via Associated Press“Our diverse stories are our corporate statements — and they are more powerful than any tweet or lobbying effort,” Mr. Chapek wrote in an email to Disney employees on March 7. “I firmly believe that our ability to tell such stories — and have them received with open eyes, ears and hearts — would be diminished if our company were to become a political football in any debate.”In the case of Florida, the approach backfired, first with employee protests and a walkout and then with a right-wing backlash. The Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Disney had “a sexual agenda for 6-year-olds” and was “creepy as hell.” Tweets with the #boycottDisney hashtag accumulated millions of impressions between March 28 and April 3, according to ListenFirst, an analytics firm.Disney executives have long held the position that boycotts have a minimal impact on the company’s business, if any. Disney is such a behemoth (it generates roughly $70 billion in annual revenue) that avoiding its products is almost impossible.But the same vast reach that makes Disney hard to boycott also makes it an increasingly visible part of the country’s cultural debates. Hardly a month goes by without some kind of dust-up, usually with sexual identity and gender as the prompt.On “Muppet Babies” last summer, Gonzo wore a princess gown to a party, defying Miss Piggy’s request that boys dress as knights.Disney ChannelLast summer, “Muppet Babies,” a Disney Junior series for children ages 3 to 8, gently explored gender identity. Gonzo donned a gown, defying a directive from Miss Piggy “that the girls come as princesses and the boys come as knights.” Out magazine wrote that the episode “just sent a powerful message of love and acceptance to gender-variant kids everywhere!” And a far-right pundit blasted Disney for “pushing the trans agenda” on children, starting an online brush fire.Around the same time, some L.G.B.T.Q. advocates were criticizing Disney over “Loki,” a Disney+ superhero show. In the third episode of “Loki,” the title character briefly acknowledged for the first time onscreen what comic fans had long known: He is bisexual. But the blink-and-you-missed-it handling of the information angered some prominent members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community. “It’s, like, one word,” Russell T. Davies, a British screenwriter (“Queer as Folk”), said during a panel discussion at the time. “It’s a ridiculous, craven, feeble gesture.”The Disney+ show “Loki,” starring Tom Hiddleston, was criticized for the way it handled the title character’s brief acknowledgement that he is bisexual.Marvel/Disney+The fighting will undoubtedly continue: The Disney-Pixar film “Lightyear,” set for release in June, depicts a loving lesbian couple, while “Thor: Love and Thunder,” arriving in July, will showcase a major L.G.B.T.Q. character.Last month, when Disney held its most-recent shareholder meeting, Mr. Chapek was put on the spot by shareholders from the political left and right.One person called Disney to task for contributions to legislators who have championed bills that restrict voting and reproductive rights. Mr. Chapek said that Disney gave money to “both sides of the aisle” and that it was reassessing its donation policies. (He subsequently paused all contributions in Florida.) Another representative for a shareholder advocacy group then took the microphone and noted that “Disney from its very inception has always represented a safe haven for children,” before veering into homophobic and transphobic comments and asking Mr. Chapek to “ditch the politicization and gender ideology.”In response, Mr. Chapek noted the contrasting shareholder concerns. “I think all the participants on today’s call can see how difficult it is to try to thread the needle between the extreme polarization of political viewpoints,” he said.“What we want Disney to be is a place where people can come together,” he continued. “My opinion is that, when someone walks down Main Street and comes in the gates of our parks, they put their differences aside and look at what they have as a shared belief — a shared belief of Disney magic, hopes, dreams and imagination.” More

  • 88 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Companies Struggled to Navigate Olympics Sponsorships

    by

    The debacle over Olympic sponsorship shows how the U.S.-China relationship has turned into a minefield for companies trying to do business in both countries.WASHINGTON — Companies usually shell out for Olympic sponsorship because it helps their business and reflects well on their brands. But this year, with the Olympics in Beijing, Procter & Gamble paid even more to try to prevent any negative fallout from being associated with China’s repressive and authoritarian government.The company, one of 13 “worldwide Olympic partners” that make the global sports competition possible, hired Washington lobbyists last year to successfully defeat legislation that would have barred sponsors of the Beijing Games from selling their products to the U.S. government. The provision would have blocked Pampers, Tide, Pringles and other Procter & Gamble products from military commissaries, to protest companies’ involvement in an event seen as legitimizing the Chinese government.“This amendment would punish P.&G. and the Olympic movement, including U.S. athletes,” Sean Mulvaney, the senior director for global government relations at Procter & Gamble, wrote in an email to congressional offices in August.Some of the world’s biggest companies are caught in an uncomfortable situation as they attempt to straddle a widening political gulf between the United States and China: What is good for business in one country is increasingly a liability in the other.China is the world’s biggest consumer market, and for decades, Chinese and American business interests have described their economic cooperation as a “win-win relationship.” But gradually, as China’s economic and military might have grown, Washington has taken the view that a win for China is a loss for the United States.The decision to locate the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing has turned sponsorship, typically one of the marketing industry’s most prestigious opportunities, into a minefield.Companies that have sponsored the Olympics have attracted censure from politicians and human rights groups, who say such contracts imply tacit support of atrocities by the Chinese Communist Party, including human rights violations in Xinjiang, censorship of the media and mass surveillance of dissidents.“One thing our businesses, universities and sports leagues don’t seem to fully understand is that, to eat at the C.C.P.’s trough, you will have to turn into a pig,” Yaxue Cao, editor of ChinaChange.org, a website that covers civil society and human rights, told Congress this month.The tension is playing out in other areas as well, including with regards to Xinjiang, where millions of ethnic minorities have been detained, persecuted or forced into working in fields and factories. In June, the United States will enact a sweeping law that will expand restrictions on Xinjiang, giving the United States power to block imports made with any materials sourced from that region.Multinational firms that are trying to comply with these new import restrictions have found themselves facing costly backlashes in China, which denies any accusations of genocide. H&M, Nike and Intel have all blundered into public relations disasters for trying to remove Xinjiang from their supply chains.Explore the Games Propaganda Machine: China has used a variety of tools such as bots and fake social media accounts to promote a vision of the Games that is free of controversy.Aussie Pride: Australia has won more medals than ever before at the 2022 Winter Games. Could the country turn into a winter sports wonderland?At High Speed: The ‘Snow Dream’ train line, built to serve the Winter Olympics, has been a source of excitement — and a considerable expense.Reporter’s View: A typical day in Beijing for our reporters may include a 5 a.m. alarm, six buses, a pizza lunch and lots of live-blogging. For some, it’s the first time back in China in a while.Harsher penalties could be in store. Companies that try to sever ties with Xinjiang may run afoul of China’s anti-sanctions law, which allows the authorities to crack down on firms that comply with foreign regulations they see as discriminating against China.Beijing has also threatened to put companies that cut off supplies to China on an “unreliable entity list” that could result in penalties, though to date the list doesn’t appear to have any members.“Companies are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to complying with U.S. and Chinese law,” said Jake Colvin, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents companies that do business internationally.President Biden, while less antagonistic than his predecessor, has maintained many of the tough policies put in place by President Donald J. Trump, including hefty tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on exports of sensitive technology to Chinese firms.The Biden administration has shown little interest in forging trade deals to help companies do more business abroad. Instead, it is recruiting allies to ramp up pressure on China, including by boycotting the Olympics, and promoting huge investments in manufacturing and scientific research to compete with Beijing. The pressures are not only coming from the United States. Companies are increasingly facing a complicated global patchwork of export restrictions and data storage laws, including in the European Union. Chinese leaders have begun pursuing “wolf warrior” diplomacy, in which they are trying to teach other countries to think twice before crossing China, said Jim McGregor, chairman of APCO Worldwide’s greater China region.He said his company was telling clients to “try to comply with everybody, but don’t make a lot of noise about it — because if you’re noisy about complying in one country, the other country will come after you.”Some companies are responding by moving sensitive activities — like research that could trigger China’s anti-sanctions law, or audits of Xinjiang operations — out of China, said Isaac Stone Fish, the chief executive of Strategy Risks, a consultancy.An NBC production crew in Beijing. An effort to prevent Olympic sponsors, like NBC, from doing business with the U.S. government was cut from a defense bill last year.Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York TimesOthers, like Cisco, have scaled back their operations. Some have left China entirely, though usually not on terms they would choose. For example, Micron Technology, a chip-maker that has been a victim of intellectual property theft in China, is closing down a chip design team in Shanghai after competitors poached its employees.“Some companies are taking a step back and realizing that this is perhaps more trouble than it’s worth,” Mr. Stone Fish said.But many companies insist that they can’t be forced to choose between two of the world’s largest markets. Tesla, which counts China as one of its largest markets, opened a showroom in Xinjiang last month.“We can’t leave China, because China represents in some industries up to 50 percent of global demand and we have intense, deep supply and sales relationships,” said Craig Allen, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council.Companies see China as a foothold to serve Asia, Mr. Allen said, and China’s $17 trillion economy still presents “some of the best growth prospects anywhere.”“Very few companies are leaving China, but all are feeling that it’s risk up and that they need to be very careful so as to meet their legal obligations in both markets,” he said.American politicians of both parties are increasingly bent on forcing companies to pick a side.“To me, it’s completely appropriate to make these companies choose,” said Representative Michael Waltz, a Florida Republican who proposed the bill that would have prevented Olympic sponsors from doing business with the U.S. government.Mr. Waltz said participation in the Beijing Olympics sent a signal that the West was willing to turn a blind eye to Chinese atrocities for short-term profits.The amendment was ultimately cut out of a defense-spending bill last year after active and aggressive lobbying by Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Intel, NBC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, Mr. Waltz said.Procter & Gamble’s lobbying disclosures show that, between April and December, it spent more than $2.4 million on in-house and outside lobbyists to try to sway Congress on a range of tax and trade issues, including the Beijing Winter Olympics Sponsor Accountability Act.Lobbying disclosures for Coca-Cola, Airbnb and Comcast, the parent company of NBC, also indicate the companies lobbied on issues related to the Olympics or “sports programming” last year.Procter & Gamble and Intel declined to comment. Coca-Cola said it had explained to lawmakers that the legislation would hurt American military families and businesses. NBC and the Chamber of Commerce did not respond to requests for comment.Many companies have argued they are sponsoring this year’s Games to show support for the athletes, not China’s system of government.In a July congressional hearing, where executives from Coca-Cola, Intel, Visa and Airbnb were also grilled about their sponsorship, Mr. Mulvaney said Procter & Gamble was using its partnership to encourage the International Olympic Committee to incorporate human rights principles into its oversight of the Games.“Corporate sponsors are being a bit unfairly maligned here,” Anna Ashton, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said in an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.Companies had signed contracts to support multiple iterations of the Games, and had no say over the host location, she said. And the funding they provide goes to support the Olympics and the athletes, not the Chinese government.“Sponsorship has hardly been an opportunity for companies this time around,” she said. More