Purpose is not just a branding trick

How problematic is greenwashing when it comes to corporate responsibility or a purposeful brand strategy? Does the end justify the means?

Intensive industrialisation and CO₂ emissions are driving climate change: temperatures are rising, water scarcity is increasing and food is becoming scarcer.

World population growth continues, and basic hygiene and healthcare are a growing challenge. The gap between rich and poor keeps widening, raising urgent questions about the fair distribution of happiness and equal opportunities for all.

These injustices are generating concern, unrest and activism across broad segments of society — because the social media on our phones are doing their work ever more effectively.

Greenwashing?

This is what we call it when brands present themselves as greener or more socially responsible than they actually are. The organisation gives the impression of dealing thoughtfully with social issues, when in reality it's nothing more than a green veneer.

Fortunately, we are seeing more and more organisations that are genuinely engaging with their social role and actually want to do something about it. They connect with the sentiments that are alive in society and give expression to their social and sustainable initiatives. In many cases, this goes considerably further than external brand communication alone.

Companies making the world better

Giants like Unilever, Danone and Nestlé appear to be taking their role seriously and are even willing to structurally adapt their business processes — or divest parts of their business — if they don't fit within the sustainability philosophy.

A fine example in the financial world is Triodos, which since April 2015 became the first European bank to be B Corp certified, focusing on value creation for all stakeholders and not just financial profit.

Or Albert Heijn, where ever more attention is being given to organic food, with pop-up bio stores and a range that now exceeds 1,000 products.

And last week came Tesla's announcement that this summer they will help solve the world's energy problem with Tesla Powerwall batteries for solar panels.

Also impressive is the initiative by Adidas — like G-Star before them — to partner with Parley for the Oceans to develop ways of cleaning up the oceans. The partnership will develop fibres made from plastic collected from the sea, to be used in the manufacturer's sportswear.

I could go on listing examples like this. Every one of them, in my view, represents an organisation taking responsibility in ways the world is genuinely waiting for.

A lie may travel fast, but the truth will catch it

There are also many examples of brands happily riding the sustainability wave without much substance behind it.

Major banks that try to put customer happiness at the centre of their communications, while their business operations are still structured around maximising shareholder value and over-the-top management bonuses.

Or hybrid car models presented as environmentally responsible, while they are in fact more environmentally damaging than conventional combustion engine vehicles.

I also think of energy giants like Essent and Nuon. On their websites they profile themselves with sustainable energy and beautiful images of wind turbines and solar panels. The reality, however, is that only a small portion of their energy is sustainable. I'm not at all certain they're doing everything they can to actually become sustainable themselves.

At Essent, for example, around 3% of energy comes from wind. For the Netherlands as a whole, only 4.5% comes from wind energy — compared to around 20% in Denmark.

And there is still considerable lobbying arguing that fossil fuels are actually the good guys and that solar and wind energy are the villains.

Last Friday, my former employer Mars Inc. — of M&M's, Snickers, Skittles, Milky Way and other confectionery — positioned itself as an unlikely advocate for eating less sugar. The sweets manufacturer declared its support for the WHO and USDA recommendation to limit sugar to less than 10% of daily calorie intake.

I have no doubt they genuinely care about people and sincerely want to combat widespread conditions like obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. But it remains quite challenging when sugar is, more or less, the primary ingredient in your brands.

The question that comes to mind: is it wise or credible for a manufacturer to communicate, through its brand, that it is making a significant contribution to solving the world's problems — when there is often no readiness or ability to implement structural, complex changes to primary and secondary processes?

Purpose is not a branding trick

Brands that do not find their origin in a rich and authentic truth — a central conviction that speaks to people's humanity, both internally and externally — will ultimately become redundant and forgotten.

People are, in my view, exceptionally good at unmasking nonsense, lies and blatant self-enrichment. If brand communication and the intentions behind it are not genuine, they will inevitably be exposed. The buzz on social media does its work.

What many marketers don't seem to fully grasp, however, is that you cannot simply develop a 'purpose' from within your brand and communications strategy. Purpose emerges from the convictions and beliefs that are deeply rooted in the identity of the organisation.

You cannot simply conjure up a purpose after the fact and bolt it on through branding. And if you were to try to reverse-engineer it, it would take years before it is embedded internally and becomes credible externally.

The entire company must first align its business processes and culture with the purpose. That, in turn, creates competitive advantage — the Stengel 50 Study shows that companies that genuinely place the quality of people's lives at the centre of what they do perform considerably better, including in their financial results.

Not perfect, but honest

What should you do if you are responsible for brand policy and, right now, there is no clearly articulated purpose or support for one in your organisation? Wait until it's too late?

Or start carefully? Plant the seeds internally and externally now, so that purpose can germinate in a later phase?

I would definitely start planting those seeds and watering them regularly. And actively look for connection within the organisation with people who think the same way.

You do run the risk of encountering cynics who will accuse you of either idealism or outright deception. But if your idealism is genuine and you are working hard to introduce new behaviours, you will surely be forgiven.

After all, people understand that you are not perfect — they aren't either. Isn't there something rather beautiful in the thought that we are all works in progress?

Alexander Koene

BR-ND People

Amsterdam, 10 May 2015

This article was also published on Adformatie and Marketing Online.