Brands are increasingly using political messaging to appeal to ethical consumers, but as campaigns grow more visible, so do accusations of performative activism and consumer fatigue.
Where businesses once remained politically neutral to avoid alienating existing and potential customers, a new generation of consumers demands visibility, values, accountability and conviction.
Brands like Lush recognise this. The UK-based cosmetics retailer has made activism central to its brand identity, most recently by closing all its UK stores for a day in protest over the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
According to Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer, 64% of global consumers now make purchasing decisions based on a brand’s political or ethical positions. What once set brands apart is now the expected standard.
Silence, particularly on polarising issues, is often read as complicity. Yet speaking up brings its own dangers: poor timing, tone-deaf messaging or shallow commitment can spark accusations of hypocrisy.
Dr Tania Lewis, a media scholar at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) who studies ethical branding, says: “It’s not enough to just post a black square anymore. Young consumers are hyper-aware of corporate language. They’re looking for consistency between what brands say, invest in and what they do.”
Few companies embody this ethos more fully than Lush. Over the past two decades, it has advocated for causes from anti-animal testing and environmental sustainability to trans rights and anti-Israel apartheid campaigns.
In 2021, Lush deactivated its social media accounts, citing mental health and corporate responsibility concerns – a radical move in a digital-first economy. The decision, widely covered in mainstream media, was both lauded and questioned.
“Lush doesn’t feel performative to me,” says Sophie, 23, a university student in London. “They’ve always been outspoken, but I do think they choose causes that fit their audience; it’s activism within safe limits.”
That perception, of authenticity tempered by strategic targeting, captures the core dilemma of brand activism: is it principle or positioning? Other companies have faced the same question with higher stakes.
Ben & Jerry’s, long known for progressive campaigning, drew both praise and traction in 2023 for supporting a boycott of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Yet for the Vermont-based brand, the stance was consistent with its decades-long record on social justice issues. Co-founder Jerry resigned in September 2025 after nearly five decades with his company, citing that the brand’s independence and core mission had been compromised by parent company Unilever.
Nike’s 2018 campaign with former NFL player Colin Kaepernick marked a calculated form of corporate activism. Nike’s tagline: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” became a viral success slogan. Sales reportedly rose by 31% in the weeks after launch.
However, critics pointed to Nike’s global supply chain, accusing the company of hypocrisy for supporting racial justice in the US while profiting from low-wage labour abroad.
“Consumers are very good at sniffing out contradictions,” notes Professor Aneel Karnani, a corporate ethics expert at the University of Michigan. “When a company’s internal practices don’t align with its messaging, activism becomes marketing theatre.”
To test how this lands with younger audiences, I interviewed 12 Gen Z consumers (aged 18–26) across the UK. The responses reflected ambivalence; a mix of admiration, fatigue and suspicion.
“I want brands to care about the same issues I do,” says Kai, 19, from Bristol. “But it’s hard to trust them. They know what sells.”
A 2023 Deloitte survey echoes this split: 46% of Gen Z respondents said they were more likely to engage with brands perceived as authentic, while 39% expressed concern about companies exploiting political causes for marketing gain.
Focus group discussions in the survey highlighted a recurring theme. It seems it is more important for brands to follow through on matters more than slogans.
Participants cited Patagonia’s environmental work and Lush’s activism as examples of sustained engagement, in contrast to fast-fashion brands posting climate pledges while churning out cheap synthetic clothing.
Social platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and X (formerly known as Twitter) have intensified the stakes. They provide direct access to audiences but expose every inconsistency.
In a 2024 Ipsos Mori study on corporate trust, 58% of respondents said they would “unfollow or boycott” a brand if it was found to have misled consumers about its activism.
Influencers also play an increasing role in mediating brand activism. Interviews with several content creators reveal a growing tension between personal values and commercial partnerships.
“Brands now want activism in the brief,” says a 25-year-old TikTok creator who wishes to remain anonymous, as she works with sustainability-focused companies.
“There’s too much pressure to say the right thing, even when it doesn’t feel genuine. If you don’t, you risk losing visibility and profit. ” The result is a blurring of boundaries between advocacy and performance: “Sometimes it’s less about change, more about optics.”
“Activism has become a form of currency. But if it’s transactional, it loses political meaning.”
Dr. Tania Lewis, media scholar at RMIT
The contrast between authentic activism and surface-level branding is not binary but a spectrum. Some companies show sustained commitment to ethical causes; others deploy activism tactically, aligning with trends rather than principles. “Activism has become a form of currency,” says Dr Lewis of RMIT University. “But if it’s transactional, it loses political meaning.”
Consumers, however, are not powerless. Spending patterns are what we reward, what we reject, and can push corporations toward genuine reform. Interviews with marketing professionals suggest that backlash to “woke-washing” has already prompted brands to back up their campaigns with verifiable data or third-party audits.
“If activism is going to matter,” says Tom Beckett, a brand strategist at Ogilvy, “it has to start inside the company, how people are treated, how products are made. Otherwise, it’s just noise.
“Brand activism is no longer a marketing trend; it’s a fixture of corporate communication. But its legitimacy rests on more than visibility. Consistency, transparency and measurable action remain the ultimate tests.”
In a hyper-connected world where every slogan can be fact-checked and every contradiction amplified, the real challenge for brands is to prove that values are more than a veneer.
For consumers, the challenge is equally complex: to engage critically, reward sincerity, and recognise that every purchase, however small, is also a political act.
In an age where every brand has a stance, it is not sentiment but substance that will decide who stands the test of time and scrutiny.
Featured image by Jess Cotter.