WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.580 Welcome to the Deep Dive. We sift through the 00:00:02.580 --> 00:00:05.160 sources, pull out the key knowledge, the context 00:00:05.160 --> 00:00:08.359 you need, the stuff behind the headlines. Today, 00:00:08.460 --> 00:00:10.599 we're diving into, well, frankly, one of the 00:00:10.599 --> 00:00:13.279 most unusual stories in American business. It's 00:00:13.279 --> 00:00:15.339 about a top executive, head of a really well 00:00:15.339 --> 00:00:16.940 -known brand you probably have in your shower 00:00:16.940 --> 00:00:19.980 right now, but he uses this company, this very 00:00:19.980 --> 00:00:23.719 profitable company, not just to donate to causes, 00:00:23.800 --> 00:00:27.199 but to build his entire corporate identity around 00:00:27.199 --> 00:00:30.000 some pretty hardcore activism. Yeah, it's a fascinating 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:31.859 case study. We're looking at David Bronner and 00:00:31.859 --> 00:00:34.359 Dr. Bronner's magic soaps based on the materials 00:00:34.359 --> 00:00:36.820 we've gathered. And the mission, I guess, is 00:00:36.820 --> 00:00:39.039 to figure out how this works. How does the leader 00:00:39.039 --> 00:00:42.600 of a major consumer goods company, basically 00:00:42.600 --> 00:00:46.159 use his corporate platform for really high stakes, 00:00:46.259 --> 00:00:48.359 unconventional, sometimes you'd even say radical 00:00:48.359 --> 00:00:50.859 activism. Right. This isn't your typical CSR 00:00:50.859 --> 00:00:52.719 report stuff. We're talking like fundamental 00:00:52.719 --> 00:00:55.140 pushes on fair trade, sustainable farming, and 00:00:55.140 --> 00:00:56.859 really aggressive funding for things like drug 00:00:56.859 --> 00:01:00.200 policy reform. It's way beyond the usual. Exactly. 00:01:00.340 --> 00:01:02.600 What jumps out right away is that Bronner just 00:01:02.600 --> 00:01:05.219 doesn't seem to accept that wall people usually 00:01:05.219 --> 00:01:09.120 put up between running a business and taking 00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:11.450 political action. It's not like he just bolted 00:01:11.450 --> 00:01:14.650 on a charity wing. He's woven this activism deep 00:01:14.650 --> 00:01:16.510 into the fabric of the business model itself. 00:01:16.810 --> 00:01:19.189 He's clearly a sharp business leader. Look at 00:01:19.189 --> 00:01:22.069 the growth. But these causes are baked in structurally. 00:01:22.109 --> 00:01:24.049 And you see that blend of, let's say, business 00:01:24.049 --> 00:01:25.930 and philosophy right there in his job title. 00:01:25.989 --> 00:01:28.430 It tells you immediately this isn't your standard 00:01:28.430 --> 00:01:31.069 C -suite. Oh, absolutely. He's not just the CEO, 00:01:31.230 --> 00:01:33.709 the chief executive officer. His actual current 00:01:33.709 --> 00:01:36.659 title. Cosmic engagement officer, still CEO, 00:01:36.939 --> 00:01:38.859 but with a very different meaning. Cosmic engagement 00:01:38.859 --> 00:01:41.739 officer. Yeah. And that switch from chief executive 00:01:41.739 --> 00:01:45.560 to cosmic engagement, it suggests his job goes 00:01:45.560 --> 00:01:47.200 way beyond just the bottom line, doesn't it? 00:01:47.219 --> 00:01:50.760 It points towards this focus on bigger systemic 00:01:50.760 --> 00:01:53.000 change, on living out the company's whole philosophy, 00:01:53.200 --> 00:01:55.120 like this idea of universal well -being driving 00:01:55.120 --> 00:01:58.560 every single business choice. OK, so let's trace 00:01:58.560 --> 00:02:00.859 this back. To get the cosmic engagement part, 00:02:01.060 --> 00:02:03.140 we probably need to understand the roots. The 00:02:03.140 --> 00:02:06.260 company. The family. Where did David Bronner 00:02:06.260 --> 00:02:09.300 come from? He was born in L .A. in 1973, right? 00:02:09.680 --> 00:02:11.800 How does he end up here? The family connection 00:02:11.800 --> 00:02:14.960 is everything. It's direct. His parents, Jim 00:02:14.960 --> 00:02:17.159 and Trudy Bronner, were central to the company. 00:02:17.400 --> 00:02:20.169 Actually, his mother. Trudy is still the CFO. 00:02:20.370 --> 00:02:22.969 Ah, okay. But the, let's call it the philosophical 00:02:22.969 --> 00:02:25.949 DNA, the thing that really fuels all this activism 00:02:25.949 --> 00:02:28.590 that comes straight from his grandfather, Emanuel 00:02:28.590 --> 00:02:30.569 Bronner. Emanuel Bronner, the guy behind the 00:02:30.569 --> 00:02:32.409 labels, right? This incredibly dense kind of 00:02:32.409 --> 00:02:35.090 amazing labels covered in text. That's the one. 00:02:35.270 --> 00:02:38.150 Yeah. Emanuel's a third generation soap maker, 00:02:38.349 --> 00:02:40.830 a German Jewish immigrant. He started the company 00:02:40.830 --> 00:02:43.849 back in 1948. And his main goal wasn't just selling 00:02:43.849 --> 00:02:46.830 soap. It was sharing his sort of moral and spiritual 00:02:46.830 --> 00:02:49.889 philosophy, this whole. all one idea that's literally 00:02:49.889 --> 00:02:52.270 printed all over everybody. All one, yeah. That 00:02:52.270 --> 00:02:55.569 concept of universal connection, unity, everyone 00:02:55.569 --> 00:02:57.990 being linked, that's the foundation for everything 00:02:57.990 --> 00:03:00.349 David's doing now. He's essentially taking his 00:03:00.349 --> 00:03:03.169 grandfather's big ideas and translating them 00:03:03.169 --> 00:03:05.229 into, well, practical, political, and economic 00:03:05.229 --> 00:03:07.430 action. It's interesting, too, his education 00:03:07.430 --> 00:03:11.250 wasn't exactly business -focused, was it? No, 00:03:11.270 --> 00:03:13.189 not at all. And that's actually pretty key, I 00:03:13.189 --> 00:03:16.159 think, to understanding his later moves. He went 00:03:16.159 --> 00:03:18.879 to Harvard, graduated in 95, but his degree was 00:03:18.879 --> 00:03:21.039 in biology. Biology, right. And that science 00:03:21.039 --> 00:03:23.780 background, it's not just trivia. It gives him 00:03:23.780 --> 00:03:26.039 this sort of systems thinking approach you see 00:03:26.039 --> 00:03:28.400 later when he gets deep into the debates around 00:03:28.400 --> 00:03:32.099 GMOs, pesticides, regenerative farming. He understands 00:03:32.099 --> 00:03:34.620 the science. Okay, so he wasn't groomed for the 00:03:34.620 --> 00:03:37.099 corner office in the traditional sense. He started 00:03:37.099 --> 00:03:39.979 working for the family business when 97. Yeah, 00:03:39.979 --> 00:03:41.580 just a couple of years after graduating. But 00:03:41.580 --> 00:03:44.020 the big shift, the moment he really grabs the 00:03:44.020 --> 00:03:45.960 reins and starts... Shearing the ship in this 00:03:45.960 --> 00:03:48.139 activist direction. Yeah. That happened fast. 00:03:48.759 --> 00:03:51.639 And sadly, it was because of a family tragedy. 00:03:51.659 --> 00:03:55.020 His father's death. Yes. Jim Bronner died in 00:03:55.020 --> 00:03:58.259 1998. David took over as president then. He was 00:03:58.259 --> 00:04:00.620 still pretty young. And right away, he starts 00:04:00.620 --> 00:04:03.000 this period of really intense growth working 00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:05.740 alongside his brother, Michael. But here's the 00:04:05.740 --> 00:04:08.990 crucial part. That first decade. He's simultaneously 00:04:08.990 --> 00:04:12.009 pushing for massive expansion and imposing these 00:04:12.009 --> 00:04:14.310 really strict ethical rules on how they make 00:04:14.310 --> 00:04:16.910 money and how it gets shared, scaling up and 00:04:16.910 --> 00:04:19.089 locking in the values at the same time. Let's 00:04:19.089 --> 00:04:20.610 talk about that growth because the numbers are 00:04:20.610 --> 00:04:22.389 kind of wild. This wasn't just steady progress. 00:04:22.629 --> 00:04:25.110 It was explosive. Oh, completely. The figures 00:04:25.110 --> 00:04:27.269 really paint the picture. When David took over 00:04:27.269 --> 00:04:29.529 in 98, the company's annual revenue was around, 00:04:29.589 --> 00:04:32.079 what, $4 million? $4 million, yeah. Seems modest 00:04:32.079 --> 00:04:35.939 now. Right. By 2017, they hit $120 million. I 00:04:35.939 --> 00:04:38.579 mean, that's 30 -fold growth. In a market like 00:04:38.579 --> 00:04:40.639 soap and personal care, which is super competitive, 00:04:40.759 --> 00:04:44.040 full of giants like P &G, Unilever, that kind 00:04:44.040 --> 00:04:46.439 of jump is phenomenal. And what's so interesting 00:04:46.439 --> 00:04:48.360 is that this happened while they were putting 00:04:48.360 --> 00:04:51.199 these ethical policies in place, things that 00:04:51.199 --> 00:04:53.720 conventional business thinking would say should 00:04:53.720 --> 00:04:57.180 slow you down or hurt profits, capping salaries, 00:04:57.480 --> 00:05:00.660 pouring money into activism. You'd think that 00:05:00.660 --> 00:05:02.600 makes you less competitive. But maybe it did 00:05:02.600 --> 00:05:04.860 the opposite. It seems like it created this really 00:05:04.860 --> 00:05:07.579 strong alignment between the brand, the actual 00:05:07.579 --> 00:05:10.699 product and a certain kind of consumer. The conscious 00:05:10.699 --> 00:05:14.259 consumer. Exactly. People are increasingly wary. 00:05:16.090 --> 00:05:18.529 So Dr. Bronner's comes along with this radical 00:05:18.529 --> 00:05:21.029 transparency, these structural commitments, making 00:05:21.029 --> 00:05:23.449 sure ingredients are fair trade, paying workers 00:05:23.449 --> 00:05:26.589 well, that becomes their edge. Consumers feel 00:05:26.589 --> 00:05:28.629 like they're actively choosing to buy something 00:05:28.629 --> 00:05:31.449 where their money directly fuels change they 00:05:31.449 --> 00:05:33.889 believe in. It flips the script. OK, let's get 00:05:33.889 --> 00:05:36.170 specific on that structure. The cornerstone seems 00:05:36.170 --> 00:05:39.170 to be this voluntary salary cap. That's the mechanism 00:05:39.170 --> 00:05:41.290 that really enforces the fair labor idea right 00:05:41.290 --> 00:05:44.350 at the very top. It's genuinely revolutionary 00:05:44.350 --> 00:05:46.589 compared to standard U .S. corporate practice. 00:05:47.050 --> 00:05:51.069 Since 1999, they've had this strict internal 00:05:51.069 --> 00:05:54.810 rule. The highest paid executive, including David 00:05:54.810 --> 00:05:57.639 Bronner himself, can't make more than five times 00:05:57.639 --> 00:06:00.399 the total compensation of the lowest paid full 00:06:00.399 --> 00:06:02.500 -time worker in the company. Five times. Just 00:06:02.500 --> 00:06:04.079 sit with that number for a second. Because you 00:06:04.079 --> 00:06:06.399 look at the average big company, a Fortune 500 00:06:06.399 --> 00:06:10.420 firm, the CEO to worker pay ratio is often, what, 00:06:10.500 --> 00:06:13.660 300 to 1? Sometimes way more? Easily. So 5 to 00:06:13.660 --> 00:06:15.769 1 is just... It's off the charts in the other 00:06:15.769 --> 00:06:17.670 direction. So how does that actually function? 00:06:17.709 --> 00:06:19.930 What does it signal? Well, first, it's a very 00:06:19.930 --> 00:06:22.470 loud signal about economic justice, right? It 00:06:22.470 --> 00:06:24.410 ensures that as the company does better, the 00:06:24.410 --> 00:06:26.069 benefits flow down. They don't just pool at the 00:06:26.069 --> 00:06:28.209 top. It prevents that massive consolidation of 00:06:28.209 --> 00:06:30.490 wealth. And second, this is absolutely crucial. 00:06:30.790 --> 00:06:32.829 They can do this because Dr. Bronner's is a private 00:06:32.829 --> 00:06:35.290 family -owned company. Right. That private ownership 00:06:35.290 --> 00:06:38.360 is the key enabler here, isn't it? Totally. If 00:06:38.360 --> 00:06:40.420 they were public, listed on the stock market, 00:06:40.560 --> 00:06:43.079 forget it. Shareholders would be screaming for 00:06:43.079 --> 00:06:45.600 them to maximize profits, which usually means 00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:47.759 squeezing wages and paying executives whatever 00:06:47.759 --> 00:06:50.160 the market rate is, which would be vastly higher. 00:06:50.740 --> 00:06:53.819 Being private lets them shield themselves from 00:06:53.819 --> 00:06:56.699 that constant short -term pressure. It allows 00:06:56.699 --> 00:06:59.199 them to embed these long -term ethical goals 00:06:59.199 --> 00:07:02.319 right into the core structure. Okay, but I have 00:07:02.319 --> 00:07:05.500 to push back a bit here. Does that cap create 00:07:05.500 --> 00:07:07.990 a vulnerability? Couldn't a competitor just swoop 00:07:07.990 --> 00:07:10.269 in and offer, say, their chief operating officer 00:07:10.269 --> 00:07:13.449 or even Trudy, the CFO, 10 or 20 times what they're 00:07:13.449 --> 00:07:15.589 making under the cap? Doesn't it risk losing 00:07:15.589 --> 00:07:18.310 top talent? That's a really fair question, and 00:07:18.310 --> 00:07:19.490 it's something they must have thought about. 00:07:19.610 --> 00:07:21.470 I think they countered that risk in a few ways. 00:07:22.350 --> 00:07:25.550 First, that very same cap probably builds incredible 00:07:25.550 --> 00:07:28.089 loyalty and keeps turnover low among the rest 00:07:28.089 --> 00:07:30.329 of the staff. That saves money on recruitment 00:07:30.329 --> 00:07:32.629 training. Good point. People likely choose to 00:07:32.629 --> 00:07:34.889 work there partly because of the mission, not 00:07:34.889 --> 00:07:38.000 just the paycheck. So you attract talent that's 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:41.279 maybe less motivated purely by maximizing their 00:07:41.279 --> 00:07:44.579 own salary and more by the values. That shared 00:07:44.579 --> 00:07:47.160 belief itself becomes a kind of glue, a retention 00:07:47.160 --> 00:07:49.800 tool. So the culture bred by the cap actually 00:07:49.800 --> 00:07:52.660 helps retain the right kind of people. Possibly, 00:07:52.720 --> 00:07:55.360 yeah. And maybe that stability and morale boost 00:07:55.360 --> 00:07:58.740 across the board makes up for potentially losing 00:07:58.740 --> 00:08:01.060 an executive who's purely chasing the highest 00:08:01.060 --> 00:08:03.879 dollar amount. The ethical structure itself becomes 00:08:03.879 --> 00:08:06.850 part of the compensation package. It flips the 00:08:06.850 --> 00:08:08.910 incentive structure. Yeah, it's this active way 00:08:08.910 --> 00:08:11.829 of building equity and maybe long -term stability. 00:08:12.170 --> 00:08:14.290 It kind of proves that radical fairness doesn't 00:08:14.290 --> 00:08:16.870 have to tank the business. It might even strengthen 00:08:16.870 --> 00:08:20.129 it. And then in 2015, David Bronner makes this 00:08:20.129 --> 00:08:22.410 official shift handing over the day -to -day 00:08:22.410 --> 00:08:24.370 reins. Correct. He stepped out of the traditional 00:08:24.370 --> 00:08:27.069 president role and took on that title we mentioned, 00:08:27.250 --> 00:08:30.610 Cosmic Engagement Officer, the CEO. This basically 00:08:30.610 --> 00:08:33.169 freed him up to focus almost entirely on the 00:08:33.169 --> 00:08:36.039 mission stuff. The activism, the policy work, 00:08:36.139 --> 00:08:38.519 making sure the supply chains were ethical. His 00:08:38.519 --> 00:08:41.460 brother, Michael Brawner, stepped up as president 00:08:41.460 --> 00:08:43.480 to handle the operational side, keep the engine 00:08:43.480 --> 00:08:46.059 running. Which leads us neatly into this newer 00:08:46.059 --> 00:08:48.379 project, Brother David's. This seems like the 00:08:48.379 --> 00:08:51.259 purest expression yet of business -funded activism 00:08:51.259 --> 00:08:54.639 founded in 2019. Exactly. Brother David's is 00:08:54.639 --> 00:08:57.120 a separate company specifically set up to produce 00:08:57.120 --> 00:09:00.440 organic, sun -grown cannabis. Cannabis. OK. This 00:09:00.440 --> 00:09:02.980 is where his long -held passions collide perfectly. 00:09:04.139 --> 00:09:06.179 Sustainable farming meets drug policy reform, 00:09:06.460 --> 00:09:08.960 all wrapped up in a commercial product, and the 00:09:08.960 --> 00:09:11.720 details matter. They partner with Flo Cana, a 00:09:11.720 --> 00:09:13.539 supply chain company, and work with independent 00:09:13.539 --> 00:09:15.759 small farmers. They're trying to build the ethical 00:09:15.759 --> 00:09:18.179 standards right in from the start. But the kicker, 00:09:18.179 --> 00:09:20.059 the really ingenious part, is what they do with 00:09:20.059 --> 00:09:22.320 the money. This isn't just donating some profits. 00:09:22.840 --> 00:09:26.230 No, this is the ethical loop concept. They've 00:09:26.230 --> 00:09:29.690 publicly committed that 100 % all profits from 00:09:29.690 --> 00:09:32.509 Brother David's go directly back into supporting 00:09:32.509 --> 00:09:35.070 two specific things, regenerative agriculture 00:09:35.070 --> 00:09:38.490 initiatives and the fight to reform drug prohibition 00:09:38.490 --> 00:09:41.529 laws. Wow. So think about it. They're literally 00:09:41.529 --> 00:09:44.129 using the sales of a product that's still legally 00:09:44.129 --> 00:09:48.250 tricky in many places to fund the movement aimed 00:09:48.250 --> 00:09:51.230 at changing those very laws and funding the kind 00:09:51.230 --> 00:09:53.309 of sustainable farming they want to see replace. 00:09:53.960 --> 00:09:56.399 industrial act. It's a self -funding engine for 00:09:56.399 --> 00:09:58.700 political change. Use the market to reshape the 00:09:58.700 --> 00:10:00.679 market's rules. Precisely. It's pretty radical. 00:10:00.879 --> 00:10:02.539 Okay, let's pivot from the business structure 00:10:02.539 --> 00:10:05.580 to the actual activism on the ground. You mentioned 00:10:05.580 --> 00:10:08.320 the financial scale of this commitment. Yeah, 00:10:08.340 --> 00:10:10.360 this is what fuels everything else. The company 00:10:10.360 --> 00:10:13.740 dedicates roughly 10 % of its total annual revenue, 00:10:13.940 --> 00:10:16.399 not profit revenue, to charitable giving and 00:10:16.399 --> 00:10:18.940 activist causes. 10 % of revenue. So back in 00:10:18.940 --> 00:10:22.080 2017, when they were doing $120 million, it's 00:10:22.080 --> 00:10:25.100 like... $12 million a year specifically earmarked 00:10:25.100 --> 00:10:27.059 for changing policy and supporting nonprofits. 00:10:27.460 --> 00:10:30.340 That's serious money. It really is. It puts them 00:10:30.340 --> 00:10:32.039 in the league of some pretty major foundations. 00:10:32.519 --> 00:10:35.600 It shows that Bronner sees the company as, well, 00:10:35.639 --> 00:10:38.120 fundamentally as a tool for moving money towards 00:10:38.120 --> 00:10:41.039 the causes he champions, using consumer spending 00:10:41.039 --> 00:10:43.519 to drive systemic change. And one of the most 00:10:43.519 --> 00:10:45.759 famous examples of this in action was the Hemp 00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:49.039 Wars. This was a real showdown, corporate lawsuits 00:10:49.039 --> 00:10:52.779 plus personal civil disobedience. Bronner directly 00:10:52.779 --> 00:10:55.519 took on the federal government. This went down 00:10:55.519 --> 00:10:59.159 early on, between 2001 and 2004. David really 00:10:59.159 --> 00:11:02.039 led the charge here. The company bankrolled and 00:11:02.039 --> 00:11:04.419 helped coordinate a major lawsuit working with 00:11:04.419 --> 00:11:07.000 the Hemp Industry Association, aimed squarely 00:11:07.000 --> 00:11:08.679 at the U .S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 00:11:09.200 --> 00:11:12.049 the DEA. And the DEA was trying to basically 00:11:12.049 --> 00:11:14.509 outlaw hemp, even the non -drug kind. Pretty 00:11:14.509 --> 00:11:17.190 much. They wanted to lump industrial hemp, which 00:11:17.190 --> 00:11:19.289 has virtually no THC. You can't get high from 00:11:19.289 --> 00:11:21.789 it. And it was crucial for Dr. Bronner's soaps 00:11:21.789 --> 00:11:23.629 and other products under the same rules as marijuana, 00:11:23.870 --> 00:11:25.730 making it a schedule -like controlled substance. 00:11:26.129 --> 00:11:28.610 The lawsuit's goal was to stop that. What was 00:11:28.610 --> 00:11:31.110 the core argument? How did they fight it legally? 00:11:31.490 --> 00:11:34.129 The main point was that the DEA was overstepping 00:11:34.129 --> 00:11:36.679 its authority. They argued that the Controlled 00:11:36.679 --> 00:11:39.620 Substances Act didn't give the DEA power to regulate 00:11:39.620 --> 00:11:41.940 non -psychoactive parts of the cannabis plant, 00:11:42.039 --> 00:11:44.940 like hemp seeds and oil, especially stuff that 00:11:44.940 --> 00:11:46.820 had been legally imported and used for ages. 00:11:47.019 --> 00:11:49.139 It was about distinguishing the chemistry in 00:11:49.139 --> 00:11:52.120 the plant parts. And they won. Big time. It was 00:11:52.120 --> 00:11:55.639 a huge victory for the whole hemp industry. The 00:11:55.639 --> 00:11:57.899 Ninth Circuit Court first put a hold on the DEA's 00:11:57.899 --> 00:12:01.480 rule in 2002, and then in 2004, they ruled decisively 00:12:01.480 --> 00:12:04.480 in favor of the hemp folks. That decision basically 00:12:04.480 --> 00:12:06.899 saved the U .S. market for hemp foods and products, 00:12:07.100 --> 00:12:09.519 which was obviously vital for Dr. Bronner's. 00:12:09.929 --> 00:12:12.110 But winning in court wasn't enough for Bronner, 00:12:12.149 --> 00:12:14.090 was it? He then took it to the streets, basically, 00:12:14.230 --> 00:12:16.909 using political theater. Absolutely. He started 00:12:16.909 --> 00:12:20.490 using civil disobedience as like a form of corporate 00:12:20.490 --> 00:12:23.330 communication. Really dramatic stuff. In 2009, 00:12:23.570 --> 00:12:26.149 he got himself arrested for a very symbolic act. 00:12:26.429 --> 00:12:28.850 He went to DEA headquarters and started planting 00:12:28.850 --> 00:12:30.970 hemp seeds right there on their front lawn. On 00:12:30.970 --> 00:12:33.370 the DEA's lawn. Yeah. It was pure defiance, right? 00:12:33.470 --> 00:12:36.549 A visual way of saying, this plant is harmless 00:12:36.549 --> 00:12:38.850 and legal. Why are you treating it like a major 00:12:38.850 --> 00:12:41.470 drug? Highly visible. And then there was the 00:12:41.470 --> 00:12:43.870 cage incident. That's probably the most iconic 00:12:43.870 --> 00:12:46.909 image of his activism. 2012 cage protest, yeah. 00:12:47.009 --> 00:12:49.129 That's pure messaging brilliance, really. He 00:12:49.129 --> 00:12:51.049 got himself locked inside a metal cage right 00:12:51.049 --> 00:12:52.629 across the street from the White House. Wow. 00:12:52.889 --> 00:12:54.610 And while he was locked in there, he started 00:12:54.610 --> 00:12:57.950 actually harvesting hemp stalks and processing 00:12:57.950 --> 00:13:00.929 them, milling hemp oil. Live demonstration. Of 00:13:00.929 --> 00:13:03.169 course, he got arrested again. Right. But the 00:13:03.169 --> 00:13:08.110 image, a CEO in a cage making hemp oil opposite 00:13:08.110 --> 00:13:11.639 the White House. What was the specific point 00:13:11.639 --> 00:13:13.700 of the cage, though? Is it just a stunt for media 00:13:13.700 --> 00:13:15.799 attention or was there a deeper message? Is that 00:13:15.799 --> 00:13:18.740 really effective? I think it's effective because 00:13:18.740 --> 00:13:21.460 it grabs attention in a way a legal brief never 00:13:21.460 --> 00:13:25.460 could. The cage was a metaphor, right? It visualized 00:13:25.460 --> 00:13:27.879 the idea that the government was keeping this 00:13:27.879 --> 00:13:31.299 useful, non -psychoactive plan and the business 00:13:31.299 --> 00:13:33.779 is trying to use it, effectively caged up by 00:13:33.779 --> 00:13:37.049 outdated laws. It made the absurdity of hemp 00:13:37.049 --> 00:13:39.470 prohibition instantly understandable to anyone 00:13:39.470 --> 00:13:41.370 watching the news. It cut through the complexity. 00:13:41.629 --> 00:13:44.690 So, yeah, theatrical, but strategically so. That 00:13:44.690 --> 00:13:47.289 kind of personal risk, putting himself out there 00:13:47.289 --> 00:13:50.289 to be arrested, it's certainly not typical CEO 00:13:50.289 --> 00:13:52.970 behavior. And it got him noticed like that Cannabis 00:13:52.970 --> 00:13:55.509 Activist of the Year award in 2015. For sure. 00:13:55.610 --> 00:13:58.710 And his policy work goes way beyond just hemp 00:13:58.710 --> 00:14:01.029 and cannabis. He's become a major force in the 00:14:01.029 --> 00:14:03.549 psychedelics policy reform movement, too. particularly 00:14:03.549 --> 00:14:05.809 focusing on the therapeutic potential. How's 00:14:05.809 --> 00:14:07.669 he deploying the company's resources there? What's 00:14:07.669 --> 00:14:09.350 the strategy? Well, for one, he's on the board 00:14:09.350 --> 00:14:11.590 of directors for MAPS, the Multidisciplinary 00:14:11.590 --> 00:14:14.149 Association for Psychedelic Study. MAPS, right. 00:14:14.269 --> 00:14:16.090 They do a lot of the clinical research, especially 00:14:16.090 --> 00:14:19.529 with MDMA for PTSD. Exactly. They're a serious 00:14:19.529 --> 00:14:22.070 nonprofit pushing the research and trying to 00:14:22.070 --> 00:14:24.750 create the frameworks for legal therapeutic use. 00:14:25.129 --> 00:14:27.169 Being on the board gives him influence there. 00:14:27.350 --> 00:14:29.169 And then there's the direct funding for political 00:14:29.169 --> 00:14:32.860 campaigns. Yes. Changing laws costs money, especially 00:14:32.860 --> 00:14:36.659 ballot initiatives. So in 2019, Dr. Bronner's 00:14:36.659 --> 00:14:40.000 put up a big chunk of change, a $150 ,000 matching 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:42.679 contribution to back Oregon's statewide ballot 00:14:42.679 --> 00:14:45.059 initiative. That was the one to legalize psilocybin 00:14:45.059 --> 00:14:47.620 -assisted therapy. That's the one. By funding 00:14:47.620 --> 00:14:49.799 that directly, they're actively trying to shape 00:14:49.799 --> 00:14:52.559 policy, state by state, to get these therapies 00:14:52.559 --> 00:14:55.059 legalized and regulated. So, again, you see that 00:14:55.059 --> 00:14:58.100 total integration using the soap profits to try 00:14:58.100 --> 00:15:00.320 and mainstream these substances and therapies 00:15:00.320 --> 00:15:02.659 that fit their sort of countercultural all one 00:15:02.659 --> 00:15:05.700 view. Yeah. Grabbing policy change from the supermarket 00:15:05.700 --> 00:15:08.419 aisle, essentially. It really is. Corporate mission 00:15:08.419 --> 00:15:11.080 and political goals just merged. They're not 00:15:11.080 --> 00:15:12.840 waiting for the laws to change. They're paying 00:15:12.840 --> 00:15:15.240 to change the laws. OK, let's broaden out a bit. 00:15:15.860 --> 00:15:19.159 Beyond hemp and psychedelics, his activism also 00:15:19.159 --> 00:15:22.340 hits hard on organic standards, sustainable farming. 00:15:23.399 --> 00:15:26.299 Especially the whole GMO debate. This seems to 00:15:26.299 --> 00:15:28.399 connect back to that biology degree. Definitely. 00:15:28.399 --> 00:15:31.240 His engagement here really highlights concerns 00:15:31.240 --> 00:15:34.159 about environmental impact and consumer transparency. 00:15:34.340 --> 00:15:38.419 Back in 2014, he wrote this really punchy advertorial. 00:15:38.919 --> 00:15:40.899 you know, an ad written like an opinion piece. 00:15:41.080 --> 00:15:43.539 Right. And its whole point was to flag something 00:15:43.539 --> 00:15:46.259 that seemed counterintuitive, that the rise of 00:15:46.259 --> 00:15:49.179 GMO crops in the U .S. had decreased pesticide 00:15:49.179 --> 00:15:51.759 use, as promised, but had actually led to a big 00:15:51.759 --> 00:15:53.659 increase. That was a direct challenge to the 00:15:53.659 --> 00:15:55.679 big biotech narrative, wasn't it? Absolutely. 00:15:55.799 --> 00:15:58.679 He laid out the argument. Crops engineered to 00:15:58.679 --> 00:16:00.600 resist herbicides, like Roundup Ready crops, 00:16:00.820 --> 00:16:03.159 just led to farmers spraying way more glyphosate. 00:16:03.240 --> 00:16:05.399 This created herbicide -resistant superweeds, 00:16:05.440 --> 00:16:07.879 which then required even stronger, nastier chemical 00:16:07.879 --> 00:16:10.850 cocktails. His big push was for mandatory GMO 00:16:10.850 --> 00:16:12.690 labeling so people could actually choose what 00:16:12.690 --> 00:16:14.990 they were buying based on these impact. And how 00:16:14.990 --> 00:16:16.389 did they get this message out? The publishing 00:16:16.389 --> 00:16:18.669 strategy was pretty ambitious. Yeah, they used 00:16:18.669 --> 00:16:20.809 their financial muscle. It ran first in places 00:16:20.809 --> 00:16:23.110 like the Huffington Post, but then they bought 00:16:23.110 --> 00:16:26.549 huge full page ad placements in really prestigious 00:16:26.549 --> 00:16:29.830 magazines. The New Yorker, Scientific American. 00:16:29.970 --> 00:16:32.009 Targeting a specific audience there. Clearly, 00:16:32.049 --> 00:16:34.409 they wanted to reach an educated readership. 00:16:34.590 --> 00:16:37.330 spark a more informed public discussion beyond 00:16:37.330 --> 00:16:39.429 just the industry talking points. But the really 00:16:39.429 --> 00:16:41.629 telling part of this story, the part that reveals 00:16:41.629 --> 00:16:45.350 a lot about media influence, was that some major 00:16:45.350 --> 00:16:48.429 scientific journals refused to run the ad. This 00:16:48.429 --> 00:16:51.090 is fascinating, yeah. Two of the absolute top 00:16:51.090 --> 00:16:53.350 -tier global science journals, Science and Nature, 00:16:53.529 --> 00:16:56.129 said no. They wouldn't take the paid advertisement. 00:16:56.679 --> 00:16:59.580 Wait, they refused a paid ad from a legitimate 00:16:59.580 --> 00:17:02.360 multimillion dollar company. What was the reason 00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:04.740 given, according to the sources? The reason cited, 00:17:04.880 --> 00:17:07.980 at least in one instance, was fear of backlash 00:17:07.980 --> 00:17:11.279 from the GMO industry. Backlash. Wow. Think about 00:17:11.279 --> 00:17:14.359 that. These journals rely heavily on advertising, 00:17:14.559 --> 00:17:17.039 not just from universities, but from the big 00:17:17.039 --> 00:17:20.839 players in biotech, pharma, the very industry 00:17:20.839 --> 00:17:23.500 Bronner was criticizing. The implication is they 00:17:23.500 --> 00:17:25.839 worried that running this ad. even a paid one, 00:17:25.980 --> 00:17:29.220 might tick off their bigger advertisers and jeopardize 00:17:29.220 --> 00:17:31.539 those relationships. That raises some pretty 00:17:31.539 --> 00:17:33.599 serious questions about scientific communication, 00:17:33.859 --> 00:17:36.579 doesn't it? If journals like Science and Nature 00:17:36.579 --> 00:17:39.779 are turning down content, not because it's factually 00:17:39.779 --> 00:17:42.099 wrong, but because they're scared of industry 00:17:42.099 --> 00:17:45.099 pressure, what does that say about open debate 00:17:45.099 --> 00:17:48.640 on crucial topics like our food system? It strongly 00:17:48.640 --> 00:17:51.059 suggests that financial interests can create 00:17:51.059 --> 00:17:53.799 a kind of gatekeeping. even in supposedly neutral 00:17:53.799 --> 00:17:56.599 scientific forums. It potentially chills debate 00:17:56.599 --> 00:17:59.339 on uncomfortable topics. And Bronner, maybe intentionally 00:17:59.339 --> 00:18:01.359 or not, highlighted this perfectly because the 00:18:01.359 --> 00:18:03.839 refusal itself became part of the story, drawing 00:18:03.839 --> 00:18:05.839 even more attention to the power dynamics he 00:18:05.839 --> 00:18:08.220 was questioning. Beyond these big policy fights, 00:18:08.480 --> 00:18:10.640 the company's philanthropy also reflects this 00:18:10.640 --> 00:18:12.660 action -oriented approach, right? Like their 00:18:12.660 --> 00:18:15.240 support for animal rights groups. Yeah. And again, 00:18:15.279 --> 00:18:17.359 it aligns with the all -one idea, extending compassion 00:18:17.359 --> 00:18:19.859 to animals. They've been significant backers 00:18:19.859 --> 00:18:21.900 of groups like The Sea Shepherd Conservation 00:18:21.900 --> 00:18:24.480 Society. Sea Shepherd, they're the ones known 00:18:24.480 --> 00:18:27.259 for pretty direct interventions at sea, right? 00:18:27.660 --> 00:18:29.700 Confronting whaling ships and illegal fishing 00:18:29.700 --> 00:18:33.319 operations? Exactly. Not just lobbying or awareness 00:18:33.319 --> 00:18:35.940 campaigns, but physically getting in the way 00:18:35.940 --> 00:18:38.940 to protect marine life. So again, Dr. Bronner's 00:18:38.940 --> 00:18:41.420 funding tends to flow towards groups that are 00:18:41.420 --> 00:18:43.519 out there on the front lines, taking direct action, 00:18:43.640 --> 00:18:47.240 embodying that same spirit Bronner shows in his 00:18:47.240 --> 00:18:49.700 own protests. Okay, let's shift gears slightly 00:18:49.700 --> 00:18:52.119 to something more personal, but still deeply 00:18:52.119 --> 00:18:55.160 connected to that all -one ethos. David Bronner's 00:18:55.160 --> 00:18:57.109 recent public statements about his own... own 00:18:57.109 --> 00:18:59.789 gender identity. Right. This was a really notable 00:18:59.789 --> 00:19:01.789 moment, especially for a prominent business leader. 00:19:01.890 --> 00:19:04.930 In 2022, on National Coming Out Day, he published 00:19:04.930 --> 00:19:07.369 this very personal essay on the company website. 00:19:07.630 --> 00:19:09.369 What did he share? He announced that he uses 00:19:09.369 --> 00:19:12.509 both he, him and they, them pronouns, which signals, 00:19:12.589 --> 00:19:14.289 you know, a non -binary gender fluid identity. 00:19:14.549 --> 00:19:16.970 That's still incredibly rare for someone in his 00:19:16.970 --> 00:19:19.349 position running such a visible consumer brand. 00:19:19.609 --> 00:19:22.009 How did he describe it? He used really interesting 00:19:22.009 --> 00:19:24.720 personal language. He described himself as being 00:19:24.720 --> 00:19:28.579 about 25 % girl and explicitly said he doesn't 00:19:28.579 --> 00:19:33.019 identify neatly as straight, gay, or man or woman. 00:19:33.660 --> 00:19:36.400 It felt like a very deliberate move away from 00:19:36.400 --> 00:19:39.380 fixed categories, embracing fluidity and complexity. 00:19:39.779 --> 00:19:42.759 And he rooted this personal journey in his family 00:19:42.759 --> 00:19:44.720 context, didn't he? It wasn't just out of the 00:19:44.720 --> 00:19:46.940 blue. Yeah, and that part felt really authentic. 00:19:47.279 --> 00:19:49.279 He mentioned how his family environment helped 00:19:49.279 --> 00:19:52.009 him explore this. His wife, Mia. identifies as 00:19:52.009 --> 00:19:54.269 bisexual and gender fluid. And they have a child, 00:19:54.329 --> 00:19:56.730 Maya, who's 25 and non -binary. So it sounds 00:19:56.730 --> 00:19:58.670 like this personal openness grew out of a family 00:19:58.670 --> 00:20:00.569 that already understood and embraced identities 00:20:00.569 --> 00:20:03.650 beyond the traditional binaries. So if we tie 00:20:03.650 --> 00:20:06.369 this back to the company philosophy, how does 00:20:06.369 --> 00:20:08.869 this very public personal vulnerability connect 00:20:08.869 --> 00:20:11.250 with All One? Does it strengthen the brand message? 00:20:11.650 --> 00:20:14.150 I think it creates this powerful synergy. All 00:20:14.150 --> 00:20:17.420 One. is fundamentally about breaking down barriers, 00:20:17.619 --> 00:20:20.099 recognizing our interconnectedness, accepting 00:20:20.099 --> 00:20:23.420 difference. publicly embracing Huda pronouns 00:20:23.420 --> 00:20:26.700 by defining his identity in this fluid way. Bronner 00:20:26.700 --> 00:20:28.819 is basically modeling that principle from the 00:20:28.819 --> 00:20:31.400 very top. It says that radical acceptance isn't 00:20:31.400 --> 00:20:33.720 just an external policy for fair trade or drug 00:20:33.720 --> 00:20:37.579 laws. It applies to the core of who we are. The 00:20:37.579 --> 00:20:39.380 company's activism has always been about bringing 00:20:39.380 --> 00:20:42.220 things into the fold. Small farmers, marginalized 00:20:42.220 --> 00:20:45.240 plants. Now he's showing that inclusion extends 00:20:45.240 --> 00:20:48.059 to gender identity, too. It adds this layer of 00:20:48.059 --> 00:20:50.440 personal authenticity and vulnerability to the 00:20:50.440 --> 00:20:52.619 corporate leadership. It makes the cosmic engagement 00:20:52.619 --> 00:20:55.599 title feel even more fitting somehow. OK, so 00:20:55.599 --> 00:20:57.759 wrapping this up, it's been a deep dive into 00:20:57.759 --> 00:21:00.380 a really unique figure. We've tracked David Brunner 00:21:00.380 --> 00:21:03.200 from Harvard Biology to cosmic engagement officer. 00:21:03.420 --> 00:21:05.640 We've seen this incredible business growth, $4 00:21:05.640 --> 00:21:08.000 million to $120 million. While simultaneously 00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:10.740 locking in that radical five to one salary cap. 00:21:10.819 --> 00:21:12.900 Right. And then the activism, not just writing 00:21:12.900 --> 00:21:15.440 checks, but the lawsuits against the DEA, the 00:21:15.440 --> 00:21:17.460 civil disobedience, planting hemp, the White 00:21:17.460 --> 00:21:19.700 House cage. And the targeted funding pushing 00:21:19.700 --> 00:21:22.720 for hemp legalization. backing psilocybin therapy 00:21:22.720 --> 00:21:25.319 in Oregon, his story really demonstrates that 00:21:25.319 --> 00:21:28.380 you can fuse deep ethical commitments and pretty 00:21:28.380 --> 00:21:31.000 radical politics with serious commercial success. 00:21:31.500 --> 00:21:34.000 They seem to feed each other in his case. Yeah, 00:21:34.119 --> 00:21:36.299 the activism and the corporate identity aren't 00:21:36.299 --> 00:21:39.099 just parallel tracks. They seem completely intertwined, 00:21:39.099 --> 00:21:41.339 like the business itself is structured as an 00:21:41.339 --> 00:21:44.259 activist engine. A self -funding political movement, 00:21:44.359 --> 00:21:47.440 almost. Using soap sales to reshape laws and 00:21:47.440 --> 00:21:50.259 agricultural practices. That commitment to actually 00:21:50.259 --> 00:21:52.619 changing the rules, not just working within them, 00:21:52.700 --> 00:21:55.440 is what makes the approach so toned. Which leaves 00:21:55.440 --> 00:21:58.059 us, and you, the listener, with a final thought 00:21:58.059 --> 00:22:00.319 to chew on. Given everything we've seen brought 00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:02.960 us absolute dedication to transparency, ethics, 00:22:03.180 --> 00:22:05.880 and these sometimes controversial causes, is 00:22:05.880 --> 00:22:08.420 there a limit? How much political and social 00:22:08.420 --> 00:22:11.460 activism can a brand really weave into its identity 00:22:11.460 --> 00:22:14.059 before the message starts to overshadow the product 00:22:14.059 --> 00:22:16.759 itself, maybe even alienate mainstream consumers? 00:22:17.059 --> 00:22:18.859 That's the million -dollar question, isn't it? 00:22:18.920 --> 00:22:21.299 Yeah. The saturation point. He's built a brand 00:22:21.299 --> 00:22:23.920 where, for many people, the message is the product. 00:22:24.400 --> 00:22:27.319 But how far can you push that? Can the ideological 00:22:27.319 --> 00:22:30.200 weight become too heavy for someone who just, 00:22:30.279 --> 00:22:32.880 you know, wants to buy some soap? Something to 00:22:32.880 --> 00:22:34.559 think about next time you're reading one of those 00:22:34.559 --> 00:22:35.920 incredibly packed labels.