People debating Nike’s Kaepernick ads are missing an opportunity: Using shareholder activism to make their voices heard.

Sportswear company Nike has received both praise and condemnation for its decision to make former NFL quarterback and racial justice advocate Colin Kaepernick the face of its 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign. Many astute commentators have already noted that Nike, as a giant, publicly traded corporation, is laser-focused on making profits and maximizing value for its shareholders. From making political donations to Republicans and Democrats in roughly equal amounts to simultaneously sponsoring both Kaepernick and the league that has allegedly colluded to keep him off the field, Nike has shown that it is an equal opportunity offender–spreading its bets around for the higher purpose of making money for company owners. One of the narratives being pushed in the now-politicized world of business is that companies must take a side on contentious issues. Doing so cements their reputations as either “good” or “bad” to many consumers, depending on their perspectives; they may then support or boycott products accordingly. So, is Nike good or bad? Conservatives can find much to dislike about the company’s recent decision to give Kaepernick a more high-profile role in its ad campaign. Liberals can find fault with Nike’s failure to live up to internationally recognized labor