Willem Steenkamp, Flow Communications senior writer and editor asks if brands should stay neutral in our divided world? Whether or not a brand should take a public stance on social or political issues is no longer a simple marketing decision. It is a fundamental strategic dilemma.

As our world becomes increasingly polarised, the pressure on organisations to act as moral agents has intensified. However, the risks associated with standing on principle, or staying silent, are also significant.

So what are the arguments for and against brands staying neutral?

For: Silence As a Strategic Choice

Avoiding alienation: in a deeply divided society, taking a stance on an issue almost inevitably alienates a portion of the customer base. Neutrality allows a brand to remain a ‘broad church’ for consumers.

The risk of being seen as hypocritical:if a brand champions gender equality but has a gender pay gap, for example, or promotes sustainability but has a high carbon footprint, the backlash can be far more damaging than silence.

Respecting internal diversity: a company may comprise employees with various personal beliefs. Taking a public stance may marginalise or silence staff who hold dissenting views.

Guarding against mission creep: a brand’s true social contribution is perhaps through its core business, creating jobs, paying taxes and driving economic growth, and it shouldn’t be distracted by social media trends or geopolitics.

Against: Why Neutrality Is A Mistake

The belief-driven customer: data increasingly show that younger consumers, Gen Z and Millennials in particular, choose brands that align with their values. A principled stance builds brand loyalty and differentiation.

ESG drives value: corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria are vital for attracting investment and talent. Committing to social justice or sustainability shows a brand grasps its impact on the communities in which it operates.

Corporate influence: by taking a stance on issues such as climate change or human rights, brands can drive change that individual consumers cannot. With great power, some argue, comes great social responsibility.

Authenticity and ‘being right’: brands staying silent on major issues risk being seen as uncaring or profit-obsessed. Taking a stand, even if it causes short-term friction, can cement a brand’s legacy as being authentic and courageous.

Two Examples

In 2022, outdoor recreation clothing brand Patagonia declared that ‘Earth is our only shareholder’, putting 2% voting shares into a trust and the remaining 98% non-voting shares into a vehicle that gives 100% of profits – estimated at $100-million a year – to land conservation and environmental activism. Patagonia is seen by many as embracing a ‘new capitalism’.

In 2023, brewer AB InBev partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to boost inclusivity (and flagging Bud Light sales). This campaign sparked an enormous conservative backlash, and when the brewer backtracked, it created a second backlash, from the LGBTQ+ community. AB InBev lost a projected $1 billion in sales and even more market share.

The differences are (1) motive and (2) resolve. On the one hand, Patagonia put its money where its mouth is; its motive was climate activism and its determination was solid. On the other hand, AB InBev wanted to increase sales, and then lacked the courage of its convictions when things went sideways.

Now consider this. The Havas Meaningful Brands 2025 report, which mined 460 000-plus consumer insights across more than 30 markets, found that 70% of people believe ‘brands should be doing much more for the good of society and the future of our planet, communication is not enough’. And neglecting these expectations is a risk, with 46% of people saying they have ‘stopped buying from brands that do not respect the planet or society’.

Silence may be golden. But it may also be fool’s gold.

FLOW COMMUNICATIONS
www.flowsa.com