Dirt is good
In September last year, the Advertising Standards Agency announced that, in recognition of the role advertising - and by extension advertising regulation - can play in avoiding climate catastrophe, they would review and refresh their guidance and rules for advertisers. They aim to make sure companies can’t mislead consumers about the environmental impact and said that they would specifically look at claims that brands make in their advertising. All of this is in the context of the UK’s commitment to net zero goals in line with the Paris agreement.
The latest instalment in this crackdown on greenwashing announced this week is a ban for Unilever’s Persil brand. From a purpose perspective, the offending ad was unusual in that it leveraged both of the twin powers that brands have: power to change their product to make it more environmentally and socially friendly; and the power to influence consumers to take action on issues such as climate change.
This second power is often ignored by brands, sometimes due to fear and sometimes due to a desire to “stay out of politics”. Brands can be reluctant to talk to their audience as citizens as well as (or rather than) consumers. This ignores the growing trend for consumers to vote with their wallet and buy in line with their values; consumption is now inherently a political act.
It’s important to note that the ASA ban did not relate to this portion of the ad, but to the claims about the product itself being “kinder for the planet”. By positioning the brand as part of the global climate justice movement and implying that the product was part of the solution to the issue, it’s understandable that the claims came under greater scrutiny from those with an attuned radar for greenwashing.
This ruling does not mean that brands should step away from their purpose agenda. It’s good for Persil and others to recognise the potential they have to influence public opinion, perception and behaviour as it relates to global issues such as climate change - indeed, growing numbers of consumers demand it. What this ruling does show is that they need to also have a very clear theory of change, and a clear articulation of how their product fits into the movement for change. Brands should conduct concrete and robust assessments of their own impact on the planet, and have a transparent and credible plan for how to reduce this impact.
To be clear, brands don’t need to be perfect to speak out. But they do need to be honest with themselves and consumers, even if the truth is a little dirty. As Persil says, dirt is good. Audiences are very forgiving of brands who are honest, who show that they are trying and who admit that they are not perfect. They’re less forgiving of brands who claim to be the solution to the world’s ills, particularly when this claim can’t be backed up with action or evidence. Purpose-led brands should embrace radical transparency and integrity as they navigate their communications and marketing, and welcome the challenge that the ASA has set.
Rebecca Baron is a passionate and strategic campaigner with more than a decade of activism experience across multiple issues including migrant and refugee justice, climate justice, LGBTQ rights and global inequality. She specialises in coalition building and narrative framing.
Contact rebecca.baron@purposeunion.com to find out more.