“A company which feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s Mayonnaise has in our view clearly lost the plot” Terry Smith, Fundsmith Equity, Unilever investor.

That quote about Hellman’s Mayonnaise is one of the more amusing and memorable in a debate that has no shortage of heavy hitters weighing in, from Byron Sharp and Mark Ritson to Hein Schumacher, the CEO of Unilever, who has said they will stop ‘force fitting’ purpose to brands.

So to coincide with the launch of ‘The Road To Hell’, UK writer Nick Asbury’s critique of brand purpose, this is an overview of some of the arguments for and against, and a viewpoint from where we stand at Circul8.

Full disclosure, we haven’t yet received our copy of The Road To Hell but we have read Nick’s excellent three part substack on the topic. And while we’ve been paying attention to both sides of the debate, the following is in no way intended to be an exhaustive break down of the topic. There are some links at the end for anyone who feels like getting further into it.

It’s unlikely that you’ve got this far if you’ve got no idea what ‘brand purpose’ is about, but as it can be a slightly slippery concept let’s try and make it clear.

Brand purpose is the concept that business should be trying to ‘do good’ as well as make profits.

While CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) programs of some form had existed well prior to the fanfare in marketing circles around ‘brand purpose’, the difference was that those causes suddenly became central to the purpose of the brand or organisation. Or at least central to how they communicated.

Two of the biggest contributors to the popularity of the idea would include Simon Sinek’s ‘Start With Why’ and Jim Stengel’s book ‘Grow’.

The purpose-led thinking coming from marketing or business was underpinned by widespread macro cultural themes that included concerns for the environment and social equality issues, all coinciding with a loss of faith in the institutions that are supposed to guide society towards a generally better outcome for all.

Plenty has been written to debunk Sinek and Stengel but the idea took hold, as famously seen with examples like Dove’s ‘Campaign For Real Beauty’ and possibly reaching a low point with Hellman’s Mayonnaise ‘Make Taste Not Waste’.

So where does that leave us today?

The Case Against Brand Purpose

Critics of brand purpose raise several compelling points:

It’s not actually good for business: One of the primary criticisms is that brand purpose leads companies astray from delivering better products and services. The argument here is that focus on purpose – especially when it’s outside of the the reason the product exists – dilutes efforts to improve the actual offerings, potentially harming the value offered to customers, the competitiveness of the offer and ultimately shareholder value in the process.

Greenwashing: Another valid concern is that brand purpose gives companies an easy way to ‘greenwash’ with superficial or misleading sustainability initiatives that make them look more environmentally or socially responsible than they really are.

Lack of concrete evidence: Perhaps most damningly, critics point to a lack of concrete evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of brand purpose initiatives. Without robust data to support the impact on consumer behaviour or wider environmental or cultural change, brand purpose risks being dismissed as little more than a feel-good exercise with no tangible results.

The Case for Brand Purpose

Despite these criticisms, the case for brand purpose remains strong:

Driving cultural change: At its core, brand purpose is about more than just marketing; it’s about fostering a cultural shift within organizations and society. By encouraging companies and their employees to consider their impact beyond the bottom line, brand purpose can spark meaningful change from within. This is perhaps more important than it’s given credit for because the effect is likely to be slow as it’s the tip of the iceberg for many organisations. But if culture ultimately leads action, it’s where the seeds of change start to grow.

Pressure for government and organizational change: Brand purpose has the potential to exert significant pressure on both government and organizations to prioritize social and environmental responsibility. As consumers become aware of the ethical behaviour from the brands they support, companies are encouraged to adapt or risk losing relevance as governments will also be pressured to take note.

Catalyst for innovation: Far from detracting from product and service innovation, brand purpose can actually serve as a catalyst for it. By aligning with a meaningful cause, companies are challenged to find creative solutions that benefit both society and their bottom line.

4. Enhanced brand loyalty: While the evidence for the marketing effectiveness of brand purpose may be mixed, a better way to look at it might be in ‘not giving customers a reason not to choose’. People may not always actively seek brand or services that meet ethical standards but when they are aware that something doesn’t, they may look elsewhere.

The Circul8 conclusion: Finding Balance*

While there are many valid criticisms to consider, dismissing brand purpose entirely overlooks its potential to drive meaningful change and foster a more socially responsible business landscape.

At Circul8 we do believe in prioritising positive impact – we call it ‘enriching tomorrow’. And unless you are ‘Who Gives A Crap’ or one of the many other brilliant companies who have purpose embedded in their existence, that means starting somewhere by changing something you are currently doing.

Of course this ideally starts with the basics of how the business operates: supply chains, manufacture and employment policies. That’s why we believe becoming a BCorp is a great way to demonstrate that commitment as the certification involves an overall review of all those elements.

From both sides of the debate there are few who would openly argue against pursuing more responsible business practices. The point where it gets most heated is when mayonnaise suddenly develops a purpose beyond making food taste good.

For us this is more a matter of the wrong focus than wrong intent. Purpose shouldn’t be seen as a marketing tool or gimmick applied like a band aid, it should be inherent. So if Hellmans had invested in more recyclable packaging, or sustainable production of course they should communicate it.

As with most things, this is less about a binary choice between profit and purpose it’s about balance and it’s about accepting that change is likely to be slow and full of obstacles. But as governance and legislation is also slow and full of complexity, companies embracing brand purpose still represents a powerful tool for driving progress.

Rather than shying away from it, let’s embrace it responsibly and harness its potential to ‘enrich tomorrow’.

•we’ll report back after reading The Road To Hell!

Further reading:

1. A positive take on Hellmans from a pioneering marketing academic

2. Unilever CEO on not force fitting purpose

3. A thoughtful take on the ‘nihilism’ at the heart of anti-purpose

4. Byron Sharp – purpose could be the death of brands

5. Mark Ritson – purpose means sacrifice

6. Nick Asbury – The Road To Hell

By Phil Watson, Creative Strategy Partner at Circul8