Last week, Unilever’s CEO Hein Schumacher made a surprise announcement that revealed a strategic shift in the company’s approach in attaching a purpose to its brands. The maker of brands like Lifebuoy, Magnum and Knorr has earned a reputation globally for championing social and environmental causes through its products and campaigns. However, Schumacher stated in his recent interaction with investors that the FMCG multinational company intends to cease the ‘forceful imposition of purpose’ across all its brands.

Observing that Unilever has been one of the pioneers of brand purpose marketing driven by one of its former CEOs, Paul Polman a decade ago, Lloyd Mathias, business strategist and independent director, says that the change in stance is most likely because investors have criticised the company for focusing on purpose at the expense of growth. “Purpose is never a distraction for any business as all businesses must be driven by the desire to have a positive impact on society. Profitability and returns to shareholders are part of that impact.

However, brands should first demonstrate purpose by what they do in a specific and relevant social or environmental issue and not just through communication,” says Mathias.

Mathias has a point. But the recent shift comes on the back of investor criticism, notably from Terry Smith, one of Unilever’s major shareholders, who accused the company of foisting sustainability in its products excessively. He was referring to former Unilever CEO Alan Jope’s statement last year that the purpose of Hellmann’s Mayonnaise was to fight food wastage.
Noting that there are several functional categories where purpose may simply not be relevant, Mathias says brands would be better off refraining from riding on popular, trending causes to boost salience.

Need of the hour?

According to Naresh Gupta, co-founder & CSO, Bang In The Middle, purpose-led marketing needs to eventually drive purchase for a brand. “If it doesn’t drive sales, it becomes a mere vanity effort. Nearly every category can be successful without purpose-wrapping. Frankly, firms doing purpose-led communication can be preachy and consumers do not want to buy a sermon,” says Gupta, who strongly believes that the ‘purpose bandwagon’ has gone too far without creating any notable impact for many Indian brands.

While a global brand like Dove has been lauded globally for its work on redefining beauty and addressing unrealistic beauty standards, Gupta argues that Dove, in fact, exemplifies everything a brand should not do with purpose. “Real beauty is a phenomenal promise, but to turn it into preaching about attitudes leaves consumers cold. Beauty, personal care and food are all categories that need a progressive tone of voice but can do without the flaky purpose wrapper,” he remarks.

In other words, mere lip service helps none — neither the brand nor its consumer. Mathias adds that brands today have to demonstrate real commitment by going beyond marketing and getting the entire value chain involved from employees to associates and partners. “Just using purpose to broad-base the brands’ appeal and layer higher order messages will sound fake and hollow,” he says.

Consumers today are also unafraid to call brands out for ‘greenwashing’, which essentially means that they are quick to hold businesses accountable for making misleading statements about their efforts to conserve and protect the environment.

Meenakshi Menon, communications specialist & founder, Spatial Access, who has worked with brands like Surf Excel in an earlier stint, says that she is not surprised by Unilever’s latest move. “Consumer activism is growing and becoming increasingly vocal. I don’t believe the move has anything to do with the company’s numbers or performance. Talking about brand purpose that doesn’t reflect in the product or in the company’s business is dangerous. You will not only lose credibility and brand value but you will actually lose millions of dollars like Volkswagen did some years ago,” points out Menon.

She refers to what was called ‘dieselgate’ in 2015 when Volkswagen was accused of installing illegal devices to cheat emission tests. It was one of the costliest corporate scandals, costing the brand over $30 billion in fines and damages.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook