Margaret-Anne Lawlor on whether brands should speak out or stay silent on societal issues
Should brands get involved in societal issues? Is it their place to speak out and take a stand on issues such as social justice, immigration, and equality, diversity and inclusion? These are key questions that relate to the controversial nature of brand activism (BA) which involves a company using its brand influence to take a public stand on a socio-political issue with a view to bringing about change in that area.
One example is ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s support for the rights and dignity of refugees, LGBTQ+ rights and Fairtrade. Elsewhere, chocolate brand, Tony’s Chocolonely has been a long-term advocate of ethically produced chocolate, and has highlighted concerns around the practices of forced labour and deforestation on cocoa farms.
Adapted
A defining feature of BA is its strong potential to divide opinion and polarise stakeholders. Nike’s long-running anti-racism stance included the posters with former professional football quarterback Colin Kaepernick (above). The brand later adapted its famous ‘Just do it’ slogan to instead read ‘For once, don’t do it’. It was the basis for an advertising campaign that called on consumers to work together to fight racism and not to “sit back and be silent”.
The campaign was seen as both empowering and controversial in US consumer research with 60 per cent of respondents aged 16-49 years supporting the message. For example, one respondent observed that “it’s nice to see a corporation, which has much more power than individuals within our society, pushing to support the Black Lives Matter movement.” However, other consumers were critical of Nike’s role in this area with one respondent indicating “I do not like the current state of racial tension in this country, but I certainly do not want to be lectured to by a multi-billion dollar company about what I should do.”
Given the mixed welcome that BA can receive, what are the benefits to a brand? One starting point is that “it’s simply the right thing to do”. For example, Ben & Jerry’s explain “we love making ice cream – but using our business to make the world a better place gives our work its meaning”. If a company is seen to contribute to a cause that is in line with corporate purpose and values, and if this resonates with key stakeholders such as customers and employees, it follows that this should build goodwill and loyalty towards the company.
However, customers by their nature are not homogeneous and what might please one group of customers, may displease another. For example, US research by YouGov (2025) indicated that 65 per cent of Gen Z respondents in the study were in favour of companies having a moral message, compared to 59 per cent of millennials, 53 per cent of Gen X and 53 per cent of Baby Boomers. A positive effect on purchasing behaviour was also evident. When asked to consider the statement “If a brand I like, expresses a view I agree with in ads, I’m more likely to buy from that brand”, 63 per cent of Gen Z respondents, 60 per cent of millennials, and 56 per cent of both Gen X and Baby Boomers agreed.
However, when asked to respond to the statement “I like brands that are willing to get involved in social issues”, a more muted reaction was evident with 52 per cent of Gen Z respondents, 46 per cent of millennials, 36 per cent of Gen X and 32 per cent of Baby Boomers, indicating their agreement.
There is also an emerging view that consumer support for specific BA issues may differ. For example, recent research from global data platform, Statista, illustrated that their sample of over 6,000 consumers in the UK, US and Germany was selective about the issues that companies should embrace. UK respondents were most supportive of stances in the areas of mental health (64 per cent), climate change (63 per cent) and diversity, equity and inclusion (58 per cent). On the other hand, 37 per cent of UK, 35 per cent of US and 32 per cent of German respondents indicated the least support for brands taking a stand on international conflicts. Therefore, whilst consumers across the three markets were supportive of many forms of BA, Statista’s findings pointed towards consumers preferring brands to exert caution in entering the arena of geopolitics.
Unless brand activism is a long-term commitment, it might be seen as inauthentic
So, how can an organisation navigate the risky path of BA? Both academics and industry practitioners often allude to the importance of “walking the walk as well as talking the talk”. Unless BA is seen as a long-term commitment on the part of the organisation, it is certain to attract the charges of ‘woke-washing’ and inauthenticity. This can serve to damage the brand both reputationally and commercially. Specifically, businesses need to demonstrate their activism in a given area by aligning their values and messaging with their practices. UK cosmetics brand Lush has a longstanding policy against animal testing which has been exemplified by its Supplier Specific Boycott Policy, a commitment to not buy ingredients from a supplier that uses animal testing.
In conclusion, is it possible and practical for every brand to be a crusader? Do consumers always expect or welcome activism from every company? In winning the support of some customers, will an organisation’s activism also serve to alienate the remainder of its customer base? The concept and practice of brand activism will continue to be controversial but its underlying premise of ‘doing good’ makes it deserving of continuing attention.
Dr Margaret-Anne Lawlor is a lecturer in marketing and marketing communications at the Faculty of Business in Technological University (TU) Dublin; malawlor@tudublin.ie
