The problem with brand neutrality

Climate comes first

With climate change becoming one of the most pressing issues we face as a society, the health of the planet should be a key consideration for all organisations, regardless of size. Consumers are, now more than ever, striving to make a positive impact on the world through the purchases they make; eventually the brands who don’t recognise the role they play in climate preservation will be abandoned.

Those making sustainable claims that turn out to be false, however, face a secondary charge of greenwashing. From H&M’s ‘Conscious Collection’ to Ryanair’s low-carbon flights, it is becoming clear that a business can equally lose support by taking a stance without the right action. Yvon Chouinard, founder of outdoor clothing and gear brand, Patagonia, is a pioneer in challenging the way in which we consume. After 70 years’ worth of environmental activism, here are a few more recent initiatives the Patagonia team has been rolling out in 2022:

• They’re taxing themselves. A self-imposed 1% earth tax is used to provide support to environmental non-profits working to protect air, land, and water around the globe.
• They guarantee everything they make. Referred to as the Ironclad Guarantee, if a Patagonia product doesn’t perform to the customer’s expectation, or becomes damaged with signs of wear, they offer a free repair, refund, or replacement.
• They are their own biggest critic. Patagonia is extremely vocal about its staff’s working conditions, site locations, greenhouse gas emissions, levels of non-recyclable waste, and total water usage. They’re the first to hold up their hands, and the first to find a resolution.

It’s one thing offering a sustainable alternative to rival brands, but it’s another thing asking your customers to specifically not buy a second jacket to deter unnecessary over-production. And the people love it. By choosing Patagonia, you’re confidently investing in virtually unbreakable gear, and more importantly, a sustainable future. It’s the ultimate case study for brand activism.

Vigilance is key

More recently, major brands are pledging to support refugees affected by the atrocities of the Russo-Ukrainian war. In events of such gravity, many feel a moral responsibility to step in to provide provisions and care for those involved. Whether that’s Sainsbury’s decision to remove Russian products from online and physical channels, Airbnb offering free short-term housing to 100,000 refugees, or EA Sports removing all Russian and Belarusian national clubs from its video games, many brands have come forward to put action behind their words.

But nuance is also key. In such situations, step one for brands and agencies alike should be to re-examine all outbound communications, including paid advertising and scheduled social media posts, to avoid negligence. Unlike most, a select few global luxury brands appeared reluctant to stop operating in Russia during the early days of the Ukrainian invasion, with the likes of LVMH, Gucci and Marni remaining silent, but still running paid social activity. This decision-making sparked uproar among their non-Russian customers and demonstrates how, sometimes, brands run the risk of polarising certain customer groups, and sacrificing brand affinity, for short-term profitability.

The transparency revolution

With brands more visible to us than ever before, it is no longer possible to stay quiet when it suits them, especially in the realm of social media. Whilst they don’t need to have an opinion on everything, brands need to be aware of what is happening in the wider world and react accordingly. By understanding the issues that are most important to their audience, brands can connect with them on a deeper level. Those winning hearts through activism are the ones that understand their target market, are aware of their past and present company track record and can effectively identify risks that might cause a campaign built around activism to backfire. After all, over 57% of global consumers are more likely to buy from, or boycott, a brand because of its stance on a political or social issue.

Sustainable storytelling and empty pledges are a thing of the past – brands are now rightfully expected to follow through on their words with actions. With greater calls for brands to shed light on their own supply chains, internal culture, and political standpoints, those operating with a closed-door policy are distrusted and scrutinised, whereas those embracing the transparency revolution are the ones coming out on top.

Looking to take the leap from neutrality to activism? We can help. Drop us a line here, and we’ll help take you further.