Depends on what "hurt" means, doesn't it? If you are "agitating" to organize political action, then the most reasonable course of action is to get the interested parties to a negotiating table and come to an agreement that works for everyone.

If "hurt" means "anything that keeps me from making as much money as possible to the exclusion of other people's interests"...

Hence the "explicitly" qualifier in my comment. Any hostile intent aimed directly at the company itself.

Does that mean a material loss of property or just potential loss of profits?

I think you get where I'm going with this.

If I go around campaigning to introduce a carbon tax, reduce plastic use, some other initiative. Does my employer have some right to sack me because it might tangentially hit their bottom line?

Am I duty bound to vote for, and encourage others to vote for, any party that would lower corporate taxes?

Do I have to (in this example) do all my shopping through Amazon, or am I also allowed to shop at competitors?

So yes, I think you can get more nuanced

> it might tangentially hit their bottom line

Take your strawman back.

I didn't say "tangentially", I said "explicitly". Anything that is aimed directly at the company itself. Like suggesting to nail the office door shut to prevent any work from being done.

How is it a straw man?

You wrote "to explicitly hurt your company". I'm not sure the word explicitly actually changes the meaning here. I could campaign to introduce a carbon tax. I'm not doing it to explicitly hurt my oil company employer. Even if I know it probably will at some level.

There's degrees of 'explicitness'. What about campaigning against fossil fuels if you work for an oil company? What about a car company? Theres a line, and I'm willing to bet it will differ from employee to employer.