The Fight For Good

Can brands really stand up for what is right?

From the #nomakeupselfie to the daily shouting down of Katie Hopkins on Twitter, in the last year we have seen an explosion of good causes, especially on social channels. That’s not to say there aren’t still some nasty sods out there, making some pretty horrid comments, but if people are vocal about good causes, should brands be speaking up too? And where do they draw the line on what they stand up for?

N.B. Due to the fact that there is already too much exposure of the negative and ignorant, I am going to focus on the good — obviously there is another side to everything I am writing about, but let’s gleefully skip over that.

Beyond the hashtags and the ice buckets, what is also incredible and powerful to see is the number of people who now post about subjects that ten years ago, maybe even five, were so taboo people were too petrified to read about, let alone write about. Mental illness, colostomy bags, Australian sex industries have all spread across social media in the last few months. And of course there is still a long way to go to fully destigmatise these subjects (and many more) but it certainly is a start towards banishing discrimination and enabling ubiquitous equality.

So if people are taking the step to actively stand up and speak about these topics, what responsibility falls on the shoulders of brands? And how far should they go in the fight for good?

Well certainly brands are being held accountable when they fail to meet our expectations of social justice. Stefano Gabbana and Demonico Dolce felt the brute force of that when they appeared to stand against gay adoptions (#BoycottDolceGabbana).

This blog clearly isn't the first time that consumers’ changing expectations of brands have been documented; The Meaningful Brand Index from Havas shows an increasing expectation for brands to provide meaning beyond simply their product not just at an individual level (personal well-being) but at a societal level (collective well-being) too. I've previously written on how and why brands should help on a personal level and I think for this post it makes more sense to focus on collective well-being. Havas define collective well-being as: government and ethics, environment, community, work place and economy. From the study we can say that brands that stand up for good ethics will earn more loyalty — so, surely it’s a no-brainer then?

Well yes, it is, and brands have started having an opinion and it is wonderful to see. There were a plethora of supportive tweets from brands when Ireland unequivocally voted yes and there’s a whole host of brands that have openly supported gay marriage before. This is not just a publicity stunt; this isn’t a brand posting about the millions they have pledged to charity. This is an evolution of that, it is a commitment to equality. This is about culture and ethics, not just looking like a nice brand. There’s a great article talking about how 2015 is the year for this strategy towards social justice to explode, for brands to track the changing issues of society and stand up for what they believe in.

It is also quite easy to see the link between brand beliefs and buying habits. The brands we buy express us as individuals — whether we like it or not. So it makes complete sense that we would feel more inclined to buy from a brand that has the same beliefs as us.

“Coca-Cola does not support any legislation that discriminates, in our home state of Georgia or anywhere else. Coca-Cola values and celebrates diversity. We believe policies that would allow a business to refuse service to an individual based upon discrimination of any kind, does not only violate our Company’s core values, but would also negatively affect our consumers, customers, suppliers, bottling partners and associates. As a business, it is appropriate for us to help foster diversity, unity and respect among all people. We advocate for inclusion, equality and diversity through both our policies and practices. Coca-Cola does not condone intolerance or discrimination of any kind anywhere in the world.”

However, taking this approach carries with it a threat of losing customers who do not share these beliefs. If a brand believes in gender equality but the customer doesn’t, will they move to a brand who hasn’t declared their beliefs? I said up front there are still plenty of nasty sods out there.

So this brings me onto my question, where do brands draw the line? Should a brand only support the beliefs it knows their target audience will agree with? Because if so, does that not kind of defeat the point? It seems too calculated to make equality purely about marketing. Yes, a business being good makes good business sense — but this should be about more than sense; more than logic. This is about belief; a complete belief in treating people equally. Belief is passionate. Belief goes beyond simply the rational.

But to stick to our beliefs completely brings with it ramifications. We could lose customers, employees. Are we prepared to take these loses and, importantly, are we prepared to enforce them too? If a company believes in marriage equality, should they fire every employee who opposes it? After all, brands are made by people, not logos.

And these questions escalate when we think about global brands. Different cultures and countries have vastly differing opinions on the rights of people. Do we stop selling our products in countries whose legislation opposes equality? If Coca-Cola believes in equality, should it still allow sales in countries that are known for racial or disability discrimination, gender inequality or legally murders people who are gay? And if they did stand up for equality, would they be prosecuted in countries where equality is branded propaganda? Or the other scenario is that their belief and definition of equality changes depending on their location? Undermining their stand for equality in the first place. Yes, I believe all people are equal, but I only believe that in these select countries.

And then of course, how do we measure our internal execution of equality — there’s no room for violating our own beliefs. So how do you measure, for example, racial equality in your company and what consequences do you impose on yourself if your preaching turns out to be hypocritical?

I don’t have the answer to these questions. It is a horrible battle between firmly believing in equality, the belief that brands should have the passion to globally commit to good ethics, and understanding that there is some glaring naivety in my thinking. I’m sure there are a number of other scenarios this could be applied to when making this opinion a reality, but even just in the few I detailed it suddenly becomes a much more complex concept to truly realise than simply tweeting “Vote Yes”.

We are in a stage of exploration, reaching out for the boundaries of sharing our opinions, as individuals and as brands. The topics we are prepared to talk about is a growing list, littered with more controversial, and historically taboo topics than ever before. We have an opportunity as brands to let good ethics guide us, and even help grow our profits. But when we wander into the periphery of this concept we enter a cultural-swamp with so many caveats it almost negates what we can do. Until there is universal agreement on what good ethics look like; until there is a common belief in equality, it is impossible for a global brand to ever fully commit. Does this mean they should not make a stand at all? I very much hope not.