Last week saw the release of the latest Delphi report, covering the topic of brand purpose and the challenge for brands navigating this topic in the politically challenging environment businesses inhabit today.

Of course, the path of brand purpose has, perhaps, never been a smooth one. On the one hand it was the pinnacle of market leading brands to have a purpose, whether related to sustainability, social justice or supply chain ethics. Purpose-driven branding has become the hallmark of businesses seeking not just profit, but also cultural relevance and consumer loyalty. It provided a means for differentiation in crowded markets, a way for a brand’s values to align with values-conscious consumers, and a means to tell stories that transcend product benefits alone.

On the other hand, critics have never been far away. One famous example is the criticism that there is such a thing as brand purpose for mayonnaise, reflecting the way, some argue, that not every brand needs a mission, and that to do so can stretch credibility. Some commentators have suggested that purpose should be limited to the few brands that are founded with an inherent mission, but that most should focus on simply delivering quality products and services.

Critics have also argued that brand purpose has often been overstated, serving more as a marketing façade than a genuine business driver, leading to accusations of brands engaging in performative virtue signalling rather than offering any real impact.

At the fringes was the challenge that purpose should not be a focus for brands, that this amounted to “woke capitalism”, spilling into a political territory as if politics was something that only governments and activists should engage with – rather than something inherently tied to business decisions, consumer expectations, and cultural shifts. But inaction is no neutral position either: silence can be interpreted as complicity, particularly on issues where consumers expect leadership.

Nevertheless, the longstanding notion that brands have a societal purpose beyond the simple provision of goods and services continues to be one that resonates with people. The ‘fourth bottom line’ of societal good has entered the mainstream business agenda, evolving beyond mere corporate social responsibility (CSR) into something much more integral to brand identity. This shift suggests that for many stakeholders, brands are expected to be proactive agents of change, not just passive providers of products.

And here is the tension: much of brand purpose relied on the implicit agreement that we can cohere around purposeful topics on which there is a broad consensus – such as reducing our negative impact on the planet, fairer conditions for people in the supply chain, ensuring equality for all people. But these topics are today one that are not so readily agreed on, which begs the question: how do you navigate an environment where you are potentially alienating a good proportion of your customer base? Do your societal obligations outweigh your commercial ones? And are you likely to alienate your employees, attracted to the place of work through the values of the brand, if you discard or reduce your purpose commitments?

The debates of yesterday were surely easier to navigate than the place we find ourselves today, which is why this Delphi report is so timely. Understanding the contours of this challenging issue is business-critical for brands.

The report sets out how it is all too easy to take a binary approach, of either fully embracing or rejecting purpose. But instead, it suggests, brands could adopt a more nuanced strategy. This includes conducting materiality assessments to determine which purpose-driven efforts align with both business objectives and stakeholder expectations.

Additionally, the report suggests deploying immersive, multi-dimensional, and continuous research to better understand the nuances of the rapidly evolving audience attitudes, to avoid missteps. But also, given the increasingly polarised landscape, integrating political science into brand insights is flagged as essential to navigate socio-political complexities effectively.

Most brand purpose work is not on the headline-grabbing (and endlessly recycled through) case studies of Patagonia saying ‘do not buy this coat’ but is instead the everyday work involved in these sorts of decisions. Do we take a stand on a purposeful topic but risk sharply reducing income if a significant segment of the customer base is alienated? Do we publicise ‘doing the right thing’ or simply get on with operating in accordance to a core set of values? Do we adapt our purpose strategy in response to shifting cultural and political landscapes, or does doing so risk being perceived as inconsistency or opportunism?

These are tough decisions for tough times.

There are no simple solutions, and brands must recognise that navigating purpose today is often about managing competing disappointments. While the pressure to respond quickly is immense, rushing to justify or defend a shift in purpose can make consumers feel their concerns have been dismissed rather than acknowledged. Conversely, brands that successfully ‘hold space’ for disappointment – acknowledging the tension without resorting to defensive or performative solutions – are surely more likely to maintain credibility.

In the end, how a brand navigates these inevitable moments of challenge, disillusionment and trust may determine whether consumers stay engaged or walk away in frustration.

Colin Strong is global head of behavioural science at Ipsos and chair of MRS Delphi Group

• Strong is chairing a panel discussion on brand purpose amid the culture wars at the MRS Annual Conference 2025, taking place tomorrow (Tuesday 11th March).