With huge expensive “social justice” rebranding programmes all the rage among major car, fashion and food companies, we thought it important to test public attitudes towards brand ethics, and importantly — why, among consumers, some still think it is vital.
After all, many businesses nowadays engage in what has been coined “ethical”, or “woke”, capitalism. Whilst ethical capitalism has a long history, over recent decades it has largely fallen under the remit of “Environmental, Social and Governance” (ESG) — an umbrella term which refers to a business’ social commitments, environmental footprint, and level of public accountability — policies and practices.
In a new report for the think-tank Civitas, Woke Capitalism: Past, Present and Future, exploring ESG policies, we commissioned polling agency Deltapoll to conduct polling among 1,524 British adults to better understand what consumers really think of companies’ messaging on social justice themes.
We found that only 1 in 14 consumers (just 7 per cent) thought “woke” brand ethics vitally important when buying products — while 1 in 3 (35 per cent) considered “value for money” essential. The polling indicated that when making purchasing decisions, the majority of consumers are somewhat ambivalent about the importance of company brand ethics.
Unsurprisingly, Labour voters are more likely to view brand ethics as important (39 per cent) than voters of other political parties. Reform and Conservative voters are the most likely to view brand ethics as unimportant (42 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively).
We also found younger respondents are slightly more likely to say that a company’s stances on ethical issues is an important factor in purchasing decisions than older respondents. For example, the “peak age” for caring about brand ethics is 25 to 34 (the second-youngest group) (37 per cent saying that brand ethics is important and 27 per cent saying it is unimportant). At older ages, the proportion of respondents saying brand ethics is important gradually decreases.
Among consumers who consider brand ethics an important factor in their purchasing decisions, we found the most simple popular reason given for caring about a brands’ ethics is: “I care about the relevant causes and issues” (chosen by 37 per cent of respondents), whether that be in a positive or negative sense — that is, brands may be supported, or avoided, if they take a certain position.
Among consumers who consider brand ethics less of an important factor in purchasing decisions, we discovered the most popular reasons for doing so included: acknowledging value for money is simply more important (27 per cent), and “I don’t trust brands that promote their credentials on these issues — I think they are exaggerating or being hypocritical” (26 per cent).
But despite the backlash, starting in the US, against ESG commitments across advertising, retail and financial services in the past year, and following Donald Trump’s election, British companies today would still struggle to escape ESG principles. Gathering, recording and ranking social and environmental data is now baked into the way that capitalism is managed and regulated.
More broadly, our report argues that ESG metrics/standards have become embedded within the capitalist system because, for progressive networks and organisations, it provides capitalism with an otherwise unclarified sense of moral purpose — even if this is not what a majority of consumers actually want. It is entrenched within the regulatory bureaucracy of the financial industry.
The ESG agenda produces distinct winners and losers. Those who gain are the companies that successfully manage to navigate an overall economic system that can appear to be hostile to excessive growth and profit. Some companies accommodate this dynamic, either because they are genuinely driven by a desire to act ethically or because they have learnt the “rules” to securing high ESG scores. This, in turn, produces winners among a graduate class of consumers with high levels of disposable income. They can demonstrate their “luxury beliefs” through purchasing products that display their apparent virtue.
Meanwhile, those who lose from the ESG agenda are companies that fail to negotiate the new economic landscape, either because of the nature of their business (for example, fast fashion or fossil fuels) or because customers who are price-sensitive find they are compelled to pay more for basic necessities, such as domestic power, in order to subsidise environmental targets. Not only do customers lose out financially, but they find their beliefs and values are challenged when supermarkets, for example, advocate for contested or hypocritical social justice campaigns.
Over time, advertisers may well become more savvy in moving away from pushing political views and returning brands to their core identity. But for now, through a plethora of national laws and international regulations, ESG principles seem likely to remain firmly entrenched within the business landscape.
