Purpose and sustainability are often confused. How can we better integrate these two concepts?

To misname things is to add to the world's misery, as Albert Camus once said. However, there is often confusion between the notions of 'purpose' and 'sustainability.' Some people use these terms interchangeably or believe that having a company or brand purpose automatically makes their business sustainable. While these concepts may overlap, they have significant differences. Ignoring these distinctions can lead to greenwashing and may undermine the effectiveness of a business's marketing or sustainability strategy.

'Purpose, What Purpose?'

The notion of 'purpose' has become an important part of the marketing vocabulary in the wake of the 2008 crisis. It refers to a brand or company's societal role that goes beyond the specific interests of its consumers or shareholders. A well-known historical example is Dove, which aims "to make beauty a source of confidence and not anxiety." The brand is recognized for its campaigns promoting 'body positivity' and encouraging women to appreciate their unique beauty. Another example is Nike, which states, "Our purpose is to move the world forward through the power of sport... leveling the playing field, doing our part to protect our collective playground, and expanding access to sport for everyone." In this case, the brand establishes a role that extends beyond the benefits it offers to consumers, striving to play a transformative role in society.

Brand or company purpose?

However, it is essential to distinguish between a brand's purpose and a corporate (or company) purpose. A company can define a purpose that goes beyond simply serving the interests of its shareholders. This aligns with the concept of "shared value," where a company acknowledges that its role extends beyond profit-making to include addressing societal issues. In theory, this means the company views profit as just one of several variables to optimize, alongside factors like environmental impact and worker well-being within its value chain.

The true measure of a company's sincerity in this commitment is whether it is willing to sacrifice some of its profits for its societal role. Recent cases involving major multinationals, such as Unilever and Danone, show that this balance can be challenging. From my experience with smaller companies, I've observed that this tension also exists within their boards of directors. We are often so focused on maximizing profits that it becomes mentally difficult to acknowledge other important factors as anything more than mere adjustments.

In theory, the brand's purpose should directly reflect the company's purpose; however, the reality tends to be more complex.

First, let's consider multi-brand companies. It can be inherently challenging for each brand within these companies to maintain the same core purpose in their positioning. At best, the purposes of these brands can be derived from the overall company purpose or, at the very least, be compatible with it, but they cannot be identical.

In contrast, for a single-brand company—like Patagonia or Tony's Chocolonely—it's much easier to align the company's mission with the brand's purpose. This being said, a company can adopt a strong societal mission without it being overtly reflected in its brand messaging to consumers. In some cases, this societal mission might not be central to the brand proposition. 

Some purists might argue that the company mission and brand purpose must be identical or closely aligned, but I believe that such alignment is neither automatic nor obligatory, and may not always be desirable. I will elaborate on this point later.

50 Shades of Purpose

When we revisit the concept of brand purpose, it’s evident that over time, this idea has broadened—perhaps even diluted. Initially, discussions primarily centered around 'social purpose' or 'societal purpose.' However, the conversation has expanded to encompass the role a brand can play in the lives of consumers or merely align with the values held by these consumers. It is important to note that these ideas are not synonymous. Advocating for a societal purpose means focusing on the common good, prioritizing society's needs over mere consumer satisfaction. For instance, this could involve a commitment to environmental sustainability or supporting the well-being of a community of producers. While consumers may experience moral satisfaction from these efforts, the primary aim is to address the needs of society at large.

Over time, brand purpose has become a popular model for businesses, leading some brands to reinterpret it for their use. In a previous role, I worked on the positioning strategy for 'Zwan' sausages, a well-known brand of canned cooked sausages in Belgium, particularly enjoyed as a snack. The concept of 'purpose-led branding' was mandated, as the brand was part of Unilever and we defined it as 'a brand that provides spontaneous moments of pleasure.' While this sounds appealing, it raises the question: is this still a genuine purpose, or are we simply rebranding an old 'emotional benefit'? Similarly, Land Rover claims its 'purpose' is 'We create discerning experiences for the world’s most discerning clients.' Once again, I ask: where is the societal benefit in this statement? Here, too, we may be masking an emotional or social benefit as a so-called purpose.

We can draw a parallel between the concept of purpose and human values, referencing the Schwartz model, which classifies fundamental human values. One dimension of this model highlights self-transcendence versus self-affirmation. This raises the question: am I motivated by the common good or my interests? If we reduce purpose to mere alignment with consumer values, those values may lean towards self-affirmation—like hedonism for Zwan sausages or success for Land Rover—thus neglecting any societal dimension.

In conclusion, the concept of purpose has drifted away from its original definition of 'societal purpose,' moving even further from the idea of sustainability.

The Critique of Purpose

The marketing world thrives on trends, often leading to a rejection of concepts we once embraced. This phenomenon is currently affecting the theory of 'brand purpose,' which is facing notable backlash. Let’s explore some of the objections.

On one hand, there are philosophical objections regarding the role of companies. Some investors maintain that "the only business of business is business," believing that companies should not pursue other objectives. This perspective led Terry Smith, a shareholder in Unilever, to argue that the company was straying too far in seeking societal impact for its brands, which he felt could undermine growth and profit. The new CEO, Hein Schumacher, has also distanced himself from the concept of "brand purpose," stating that it should not be automatically applied to all of the company's brands.

Philosophical objections can also take a different form. Some critics argue that brands overstep their boundaries by claiming societal benefits, thereby devaluing the causes they purport to support. This is particularly evident when a company's actual policies do not align with its promises. For instance, Gillette faced backlash for promoting "positive masculinity" in one of its advertisements, while simultaneously being accused of practicing the "pink tax" in other areas.

Additionally, there is a viewpoint that the trend of "purpose-led branding" serves as a way for marketers to seek moral justification for a profession often criticized for its negative societal impact.

Furthermore, many marketing specialists question the effectiveness of this strategy. Are consumers genuinely motivated primarily by altruistic values? Numerous studies suggest that this is not the case. While it is unfortunate, it is something we must acknowledge. Moreover, are all brands justified in claiming higher-order benefits? For example, can my shaving foam really save the planet? The trend of "purpose-led branding" also risks creating uniformity in brand positioning, leading many to appear as self-righteous moralizers. If you want to know more about the criticism of brand purpose, Nick Asbury is very vocal about it in his book 'The Road to Hell'.

In my opinion, we should not disregard the potential value of "brand purpose." In specific cases, a branding strategy based on societal purpose can be effective, particularly when it resonates with the target audience, when the brand has a genuine role to play, and when it approaches this role with sincerity and effectiveness. However, purpose-driven branding should be viewed as just one of many strategies available in marketing. Typically, new approaches do not replace existing ones; they simply add another tool to the marketer's toolbox. Therefore, we should neither elevate "brand purpose" to the status of a universal branding theory nor dismiss it entirely.

And What About Sustainability?

It makes sense to link the concepts of 'purpose' and 'sustainability,' as both deal with a company's impact on the common good. However, it’s important to recognize some essential nuances.

Simply put, sustainability refers to the net impact that a company has on the common good, both now and for future generations. This impact can be assessed through various frameworks, including the three 'P's: planet, people, and prosperity, the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and the ESG criteria: environmental, social, and governance. Therefore, we should be cautious in claiming that a brand or company is 'sustainable' in absolute terms, as such claims are rarely justified. Even the most eco-responsible companies tend to leave some kind of environmental footprint. For example, Patagonia, often seen as a model for sustainable business, has stated that it does not claim to be entirely sustainable. Consequently, we should speak of companies or brands as being 'more sustainable' rather than sustainable in an absolute sense. We could also refer to their 'leadership' in sustainability, assessing whether they are committed to making significant progress—beyond the average in their sector—on all aspects that are crucial for impact.

A key concept in sustainability is materiality. Materiality examines which areas are objectively most significant for the company’s societal impact. For instance, while it may be commendable for an airline to serve fair trade coffee, this is not where we would expect them to focus their sustainability efforts. In contrast, for companies like Nespresso or Starbucks, sourcing raw materials in an ethically sound manner is vital. However, determining materiality is largely objective and requires input from various external stakeholders. While we can choose our battles when it comes to purpose, we cannot afford the same flexibility with sustainability, as it is chiefly dictated by the company’s real impact on its environment. 

Tensions Between Sustainability and Purpose

Brand purpose, particularly when focused on societal issues, often prioritizes specific aspects. For instance, Dove emphasizes 'body positivity,' while Tony's Chocolonely highlights 'the eradication of modern slavery.' However, sustainability is holistic and systemic; it considers all the material elements that contribute to a company's impact. For example, Dove's commitment to the positive perception of women does not address its contributions to plastic pollution. As a result, Dove may not be a particularly sustainable brand overall, even if its societal commitment is commendable.

Tony's Chocolonely presents an interesting case. While it focuses on the specific issue of slavery in cocoa farms, it also adopts a holistic approach to sustainability by addressing ecological and social dimensions. Consequently, we could argue that Tony's is both a purpose-driven brand and more sustainable than many of its competitors. Yet, it is essential to recognize that it is not entirely sustainable in absolute terms. Chocolate inherently has a significant carbon footprint, its packaging is not highly recyclable, and it cannot be classified as a particularly healthy food option.

Another related tension arises from the fact that a brand's purpose is often shaped by what resonates with its audience. In contrast, sustainability is concerned with objective impact, regardless of public perception. Many studies reveal that consumers frequently have a biased understanding of what is sustainable. Consequently, a purpose-led approach might lead brands to overinvest in areas that appeal to consumers, potentially neglecting other aspects that could make a more substantial difference in terms of impact. For instance, the food industry often focuses on improving packaging impact because it is tangible for consumers, while the most significant impacts frequently lie in agricultural and industrial production methods.

Lastly, it raises the question of whether a purpose-led brand strategy is always the most effective. If a product is genuinely superior in terms of sustainability, it is crucial to market it effectively from a societal perspective. However, as mentioned earlier, a purpose-led strategy may not always be the best approach. Positioning a product solely based on its societal benefits could jeopardize its commercial success, which, in turn, would affect its societal impact.

It is important to note that recognizing the differences between purpose and sustainability does not inherently mean opposing these concepts. A business strategy centered around purpose can facilitate the implementation of a robust sustainability strategy, and this strategy may, at times, benefit from a purpose-driven brand positioning. However, this is not always the case, and we should avoid assuming that these concepts automatically overlap. 

Summary diagram

Summary diagram

Corporate leadership represents the extent to which the company invests resolutely and more than its competitors in a sustainability approach based on an objective materiality analysis.

The core of the branding strategy can be based on the societal purpose or the direct benefit brought to the consumer.

NB: choice of brands subject to discussion, for illustration only

Conclusion :

The distinction between sustainability and purpose is subtle yet important. Even if your company has a clear purpose, you should consider whether it is as sustainable as possible. Conversely, if your brand is sustainable, does that mean it should automatically be linked to a societal purpose? In some cases, the answer to these questions may indeed be yes, but in many others, a different strategy might be more appropriate. Therefore, while purpose and sustainability can effectively complement each other, it is crucial to understand their differences to combine them effectively when necessary.