Brand stories are crafted with intent, and both critics and audiences are becoming increasingly aware of this. Amidst this awareness, meaningful actions must compete for space with superficial brand-washing, as the debate over the role brands play continues to grow.
We are living in a time of constant change, and the social and environmental challenges we face aren’t going away—if anything, they’re intensifying.
This creates an opportunity to reassess and deepen our understanding of what each brand should truly represent. The goal, of course, is not to abandon the idea of “purpose”, as some argue, but to refine it so that it can withstand today’s complexities and deliver real results.
This topic has grown increasingly controversial in recent years. Some argue we’re witnessing the decline of the “purpose” era, while others believe that it is simply evolving. The real issue, however, is that this debate is often clouded by opinion rather than grounded in substantial evidence from either side.
As a communications strategist working on projects and campaigns that demonstrate the link between social impact and brand relevance, my main concern is the fragility of the conversations within the marketing industry. Few brands have reliable data on the actual effectiveness of their purpose-driven efforts.
In business strategy, decisions about product, distribution, and pricing are made with meticulous care, using data and science—not guesswork. Yet, when it comes to socio-environmental efforts, the conversation is often dictated by passing trends and unsupported opinions. Amidst this noise, there’s a glaring lack of clarity on how to measure what truly works.
The problem? Without a solid foundation, opportunism takes the lead. Brands start acting just because others are doing the same, without fully understanding the “why” behind their actions or what they aim to achieve.
When the expected results don’t materialize, it’s easy to dismiss the entire concept as ineffective.
But how do we change this? How do we approach things differently?
Revisit the brand itself.
Study the audience as people, not just consumers, and recognize that building socio-environmental impact is a strategic way to truly engage them. Rather than mimicking what other brands are doing, we should focus on taking meaningful actions—scrutinizing supply chains, reducing carbon footprints, and addressing social issues—grounded in the brand’s core values.
Understand where the brand stands in terms of impact maturity.
A brand with a clear purpose, defined territory, and consistent actions is in a different place from one that wants to make an impact but doesn’t know where to start. Similarly, a brand recovering from a reputational crisis requires a different strategy from one addressing multiple social issues without depth in any. Each situation requires a distinct approach and strategy.
Identify the right metrics—because they matter.
We need to establish not only marketing and communication KPIs but also socio-environmental KPIs that align to business outcomes. Will this KPI drive talkability? Or will it make the brand more meaningful to a specific audience? Everyone loses when brands treat social issues as mere opportunities to win awards rather than a means of building brand value and creating lasting impact.
We must consider who is crafting our brand narratives. Many companies are retreating on diversity and inclusion, and it’s alarming how these conversations are often dominated by straight, cisgender white men from privileged backgrounds. This exclusion marginalizes Black individuals, those from low-income backgrounds, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, and those from underdeveloped regions. Such an imbalance creates a disconnect between decision-makers and those facing the most severe social and environmental challenges.
Moreover, we must invest in understanding the reality of the world we live in. The UN may have set the 2030 agenda, but progress has been alarmingly slow. This highlights not only the urgency of the moment but also how far many companies are from fulfilling their expected roles. Does this mean that every brand must adopt a clear purpose immediately? Not necessarily. But even not doing so should be a deliberate and well-considered decision.
All this work must be grounded in science and supported by metrics, research, continuous monitoring, proper funding, and, above all, respect.
Purpose is not a World Cup final, where two sides compete to see who’s right—the critics or the defenders. A healthy debate enables the pros and cons of both viewpoints to be heard, paving the way for a more strategic path forward for both brands and the world.
Without this balanced approach, both sides will ultimately lose.