How does Generation Z take a stand
on brands that take a stand?
A qualitative study of Generation Z’s perceptions of
brand activism
Bachelor Thesis in Marketing
Department of Business Administration
School of Business, Economics and Law
Spring 2022
Emilia Andersson
Alice Nylund
Supervisor: Johanna Rau
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our utmost gratitude to our supervisor Johanna Rau for supporting
us throughout our process and giving us valuable feedback. A big thank you is also directed
to our supervision group who helped us on our way to our goals. We would also like to thank
our 14 respondents for taking the time to answer our questions and contribute to our study.
Emilia Andersson Alice Nylund
Abstract
Today's consumers expect that brands take greater social responsibility and take a stand on
sociopolitical issues, such as the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements. In previous
research, the dominant explanation for this is a growing need for consumers to seek out
brands with the same values as themselves. At the same time, brands’ standpoints are also
met by consumer suspicion and skepticism. It creates a complicated paradox that gives rise to
a high level of uncertainty about if and how brands should adopt activist behavior. The
purpose of this study is to examine Generation Z's perceptions of the concept of branded
activism and their views on how brands should take a stand in today's society. The war in
Ukraine has rekindled the debate on whether and how companies should act in situations like
this. For this reason, perceptions of companies' actions in the Ukraine conflict are also
examined to offer an updated perspective on the subject.
From the analysis of qualitative interviews, it is evident that representatives of Generation Z
view the concept of brand activism positively when brands engage in it in the right way but
achieving this is considered difficult. This is because brand activism is met with skepticism
and questioning of genuineness. There is doubt as to whether brands want to achieve societal
change or whether they only want to obtain greater profits. Hence, it is important for
Generation Z that brands authentically engage in activist behavior, by being consistent,
transparent, willing to sacrifice profits, and avoiding involvement in trendy and too highly
politicized issues. As for the specific case of the Ukraine war, Generation Z welcomes
companies withdrawing from Russia and supporting Ukraine. Brands should think about
making concrete actions rather than producing standalone commercials. In sum, the findings
of the research have implications for brands that are targeting the segment of Generation Z
which primarily informs them that engaging in brand activism requires an evident
consistency between cause, brand, and actions.
Keywords: brand activism, Generation Z, perceptions, brand authenticity, consumer
skepticism, Ukraine war
Table of Content
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 Problematization 9
1.3 Research Aim 10
1.4 Research Questions 10
1.5 Demarcations 10
1.6 Thesis Structure 11
2 Theoretical Framework 13
2.1 The Postmodern Consumer 13
2.2 Generation Z 14
2.3 Brand Activism 14
2.4 Brand Authenticity 16
2.5 Consumer Skepticism 18
3 Methodology 20
3.1 Research Approach 20
3.2 Interviews 21
3.3 Participant Selection 22
3.4 Interview Structure 23
3.5 Data Analysis 24
3.6 Research Ethics 24
3.7 Trustworthiness 25
4 Case Descriptions 27
4.1 Gillette 27
4.2 Pepsi 27
4.3 Arla 28
5 Empirical Findings & Analysis 29
5.1 Expectations of Brands 29
5.2 Perceptions of Brand Activism 30
5.3 Authenticity & Skepticism 32
5.4 How to Engage in Brand Activism 36
5.5 The Special Case of the Ukraine War 38
5.5.1 An Insignificant Action? 38
5.5.2 A Significant Action? 39
6 Discussion 42
7 Conclusion 45
7.1 Implications 46
7.2 Limitations & Future Research 48
Reference List 49
Appendix 55
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant information 23
List of Figures
Figure 1: Arla 28
1 Introduction
The first part introduces a description and background of the research topic. It continues with
a problem discussion where the complexity of the subject is discussed, and a research gap is
presented. Naturally, this leads to the aim and research questions of the study. Finally,
demarcations and thesis structure are provided to clarify our procedure.
Today, it is inescapable for brands to take a stand on and work with sustainability issues since
it is demanded from consumers, employees, investors, and other stakeholders. But what do
consumers demand of brands when it comes to other values and positions, for example
regarding social and political events?
It can be stated that not only politicians and leaders have a voice in the political and social
debate, but also brands. One case where this became clear was when Nike decided to make a
campaign with the American football player Colin Kaepernick, which caught a lot of
attention (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020). The football star kneeled during the American national
anthem to support and raise attention to the Black Lives Matter movement. His intention was
to protest against racial injustice and police brutality against black people. By collaborating
with Kaepernick, Nike took a stand in the societal debate (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020). Even
though the brand received negative reactions, Nike saw a value in expressing its stand
regarding the issue (CNBC, 2018). As with Nike, there are many brands that today take
stands and voice their opinions regarding different sociopolitical events, also known as brand
activism. This research will further explore the topic of brand activism and consumers'
perceptions of brands that take a stand.
1.1 Background
The consumer society reflects the society as a whole and as the society constantly changes, so
does the consumer society. Today, consumers express their self-identity through consumption
while many brands use stories and myths to communicate their values (Arnould &
Thompson, 2005; Holt, 2004). Therefore, brands are viewed as carriers of meaning and
through them, consumers can experience belonging and expression of themselves. By
consuming specific brands, consumers can implicitly communicate to the world who they are,
what they stand for, or whom they strive to be. Moreover, as stated by Cova and Cova (2012),
the revolution of digitalization and technical developments have resulted in a progressive,
7
aware, and informed consumer, which in turn has made them more powerful in their
relationships with brands. The consumers of today are co-producing value together with
brands and they have more power over their consumption than before (Cova & Cova, 2012).
Overall, this creates incentives for brands to understand consumers' values and opinions.
Consumers seek to acquire products from brands that they can identify with, and when brands
are clear about their standpoints, like-minded consumers can be attracted and targeted.
One generation specifically characterized by wanting to express their identity, opinions, and
values through consumption is Generation Z, which is a description of people born in the
years between 1995 and 2010 (Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Djafarova & Bowes, 2021). In
comparison with earlier generations, consumers of Generation Z are more aware and political
and have high expectations on brands (Sarkar & Kotler, 2017). According to Mirzaei, Wilkie,
and Siuki (2022), it is especially younger consumers that care about and value companies that
engage in social issues and support movements. Not only is it an interesting generation to
investigate regarding this topic, but it is also the largest generation consisting of 32% of the
global population (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021). Generation Z will continue to have a strong
purchasing power in the coming years (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021) and it is, therefore,
interesting for marketers, companies, and society to investigate how they think, what they
value, and how they act.
On one hand, it seems to be important that companies take a stand on sociopolitical issues, to
be able to meet the needs of today's consumers. On the other hand, it seems to be important
that brands take a stand in an authentic way. In 2017, Pepsi released a campaign with the
supermodel Kendall Jenner. The campaign aimed to show how “people from different social
strata come together” (BBC News, 2017). However, the advertisement was perceived in a
completely different way and massive criticism was directed at both Pepsi and Jenner. People
believed that the company and the model were capitalizing on the Black Lives Matter
movement and that it diminished and trivialized what protests are about (BBC News, 2017).
Only a few days after being launched, the campaign was retracted due to the storm of
criticism that had emerged (Manfredi-Sánchez, 2019). Hence, taking a stand in an ongoing
crisis or debate also implies great risks.
8
1.2 Problematization
Brand activism can be viewed and discussed from different perspectives. In some cases,
when brands engage in brand activism their reputation can be damaged (Vredenburg,
Kapitan, Spry & Kemper, 2020). For example, it can be accused of being inauthentic and of
woke washing, a term used for brands who mislead consumers by falsely claiming to have an
engagement in social change. Engaging in such practices is therefore hazardous and not an
effective marketing strategy. On the other hand, when the opposite is done, i.e. when a
brand’s purpose, values, and communication align, great value is often created as well as the
trust and equity of the brand increase (Vredenburg et al., 2020). This paradox is reflected in
the CMO Survey (Deloitte, 2018). It showed that 22.4% of marketing leaders perceive brands
taking a stand on sociopolitical issues as suitable and the most common argument put forward
was the importance of showing that brands do not only exist to make profits. However, the
larger proportion who were against taking a stand claimed that there are great risks with
activism, as they believe it will negatively affect brands’ ability to appeal to and retain
customers (Deloitte, 2018). The subject becomes further complex when consumer
expectations of brands become greater, at the same time as the consumer population becomes
increasingly polarized (Klostermann, Hydock & Decker, 2021). Thus, it is inevitable that
companies' expressed standpoints will be met by both positive and negative perceptions and
reactions. In other words, it can be stated that there is uncertainty and different perceptions
among both consumers and brand managers about how effective activism is as it comes with
great risks while considerable benefits can be reaped.
Previous research on this topic often discusses different types of brand activism and why it is
important in the contemporary consumer society (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020; Mukherjee &
Althuizen, 2020). The link between activism and authenticity as well as skepticism are
recurring themes in previous research (Mirzaei et al., 2022; Schmidt, Ind, Guzmán &
Kennedy, 2022; Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). In addition, researchers have delved into the
evolution from neutral and impartial companies to realizing and taking on greater social
responsibility which mostly has been driven by consumer expectations (Lin, 2018). However,
there are research gaps in the field of brand activism. There is narrow research that explores
different generations’ views on the topic. Moreover, it is more rarely researched about how
and in what way consumers themselves believe that brands should take a stand.
9
In addition, with the ongoing war in Ukraine, the subject of companies that take a stand
becomes more relevant than ever. Companies all over the world have acted in various ways to
protest against the Russian regime and to support the Ukrainian refugees. For example,
McDonald's temporarily closed all its Russian restaurants and Apple no longer sells its
products on the Russian market (Sozzi & Semenova, 2022; Biron, 2022). Additionally,
companies are also showing support to Ukraine by offering aid and donating money (Reuters,
2022). Simultaneously, some brands adopt a more passive strategy with their core business
and operations proceeding as usual. Hence, the war has rekindled the debate over whether
companies should take a stand or act with restraint. Since it is an ongoing situation, there is
barely, if any, research done on this case in regard to brand activism.
1.3 Research Aim
The research paper will study the above mentioned problematization and the topic of brand
activism. The research aim is to investigate Generation Z’s perceptions of brands that have
taken a stand on socially political topics, in general, and focus on some selected cases and
brands that have done this regarding the war in Ukraine, in particular. Moreover, the research
seeks to gain a deeper understanding of how Generation Z believes that brands should engage
in brand activism.
1.4 Research Questions
To be able to fulfill the aim, the research intends to answer the following questions:
- How does Generation Z perceive sociopolitical brand activism?
- How should brands engage in brand activism according to Generation Z?
1.5 Demarcations
The study is limited to consumers of Generation Z to gain a deeper understanding of one
narrower group, instead of attaining a more overall picture of several groups. As stated
above, consumers of this generation often share similar progressive values which is why it is
interesting to explore their perceptions and feelings about brand activism. Furthermore,
consumers of Generation Z have and will continue to have great purchasing power. For this
reason, it is vital to scrutinize this generation since it can determine the future significance of
brand activism.
10
With the research aim in mind, the study is concentrated on sociopolitical brand activism that
is communicated through marketing efforts. Since the term brand activism is wide, it is vital
to establish what aspect of it is going to be addressed. The cases of Nike and Pepsi described
above are examples of brands taking a stand on sociopolitical issues in society. Focusing on
issues regarding gender, race, and age in interaction with political factors sets a certain
direction for the study and facilitates the research process. These demarcations are connected
since Generation Z is aware of and engaged in sociopolitical issues and movements. Hence,
these aspects are appropriate and applicable to what is set out to be studied.
1.6 Thesis Structure
Theoretical Framework: In this section, the theoretical framework is presented. The
concepts presented in this chapter are used to analyze the empirical data. First a description of
the postmodern consumer and Generation Z is provided. An overview of previous research on
brand activism is also provided, leading to the concept of brand authenticity. Lastly, the
concept of skepticism is discussed.
Methodology: The following part will contain the methodological framework and is a
description of what, why, and how the research was conducted. Also, it is a motivation of
how the methodology supports the aim of the study. Moreover, it presents how the interviews,
participant selection, and data analysis were made. To assure the quality of the research, we
describe our approach to research ethics and trustworthiness.
Case Descriptions: In this chapter, three marketing activities that were discussed in the
interviews are described. Two commercials, one from Gillette and one from Pepsi as well as a
marketing decision Arla made, are presented. The cases are portrayed to facilitate the process
of understanding the empirical findings and analysis.
Empirical Findings and Analysis: In this section, empirical findings of the interviews are
presented, as well as an analysis of them. The results are interpreted with the help of the
theoretical framework of the study. Furthermore, the section is structured in emerging themes
that were noted when examining the empirical discoveries.
11
Discussion: What was discovered in the empirical findings and analysis is further discussed
in this section. More specifically, a summarizing discussion is made based on the findings of
how Generation Z perceives brand activism and how they believe brands should act in this
matter. The section highlights terms such as expectations of brands, skepticism, authenticity,
and trustworthiness.
Conclusion: The conclusion consists of a concise answer to the research questions of the
study. In addition, the implications that the research has on society, the marketing research
field, and brand managers, are highlighted here. Lastly, some limitations of the research and
suggestions for future research are presented.
12
2 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework consists of a presentation of concepts that are later used to
analyze the empirical data. Since the thesis aims to investigate the perceptions of brand
activism from Generation Z’s point of view, a description of the postmodern consumer and
Generation Z is needed to understand how they think concerning brand activism. Further,
previous research and literature on brand activism are presented. In addition, the concept of
brand authenticity and consumer skepticism is discussed to create a comprehensive
framework to be able to analyze our data.
2.1 The Postmodern Consumer
Consumption plays a large part in consumers’ identity work in the postmodern society (Todd,
2012). Products are imbued with meanings that consumers use as a part of creating a sense of
identity. In other words, consumers do not only acquire a physical product, but also an
expression of certain values (Mirzaei et al., 2022). Brands play a part in forming the symbols
and expressions imbued in products, by acting and advertising in a certain way. Choosing
between a large amount of buying offerings and opportunities, consumers face an infinite
process of constructing an identity. Contemporary consumption is a way to communicate to
others who one is and to what groups one belongs to (Todd, 2012).
Increasingly more consumers are aware of important societal issues, which often is reflected
in their purchases. By buying products from brands that stand for the same values as oneself,
at the same time as refraining from those with conflicting values, consumers think and act
beyond the functional attributes of products (Mirzaei et al., 2022). According to Mukherjee
and Althuizen (2020) brand activism creates opportunities for consumers to discover what
brands match their values and morals. The Consumer-Brand Identification Theory describes
that when consumers identify themselves with a brand, it is more likely for the brand to
achieve customer satisfaction and loyalty (Popp & Woratschek, 2017). This phenomenon
points to the importance of brand activism because consumers are actively looking for
like-minded companies. Since this study aims to explore the concept from a consumer
perspective, it is important to initially gain a greater understanding of how consumers think
and act in today's postmodern society.
13
2.2 Generation Z
Dividing consumer groups into generations can provide useful insights because they often
have similar consumer and buying behavior as a result of them growing up in the same period
(Solomon, 2019). They share the experience of historical events, social happenings, trends,
and values. The reason behind this can be explained by the Generation Cohort Theory which
proposes that social and political happenings, experienced in the early period of life, result in
the group establishing similar values (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021). According to Solomon
(2019) age is a great part of an individual's identity and people are generally more
like-minded with others that are of a similar age.
According to Djafarova and Bowes (2021), Generation Z is a description of people born in
the years between 1995 and 2010. This generation's main characteristic is that they are the
first generation to have grown up in a digital age with high exposure to digital advertisements
and communication (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021). Since Generation Z is constantly connected
to the internet and social media, it is the generation to be most exposed to and have access to
more information than ever (Chaney, Touzani & Slimane, 2017). Further, Generation Z is
socially conscious and political and has high expectations of brands (Chaney et al., 2017;
Sarkar & Kotler, 2020). They want brands to be authentic, preferably transparent, and stand
for something (Solomon, 2019). Additionally, it is important for consumers of Generation Z
to express their identity, which is done through consumption to a large extent (Francis &
Hoefl, 2018). Consequently, they favor brands whose values align with theirs.
2.3 Brand Activism
To understand brand activism, it is vital to investigate different views and the current state of
knowledge on this topic. The concept of brand activism has become relevant within the
marketing research field since it is more common in brands’ marketing strategies today,
which potentially can be profitable (Lin, 2018; Mirzaei et al., 2022). Brand activism is
defined as companies that engage and take a stand on issues intending to improve society
(Mukherjee & Althuizen, 2020). Brand activism is often communicated through marketing
activities that contain different stances on various issues to affect consumers
(Manfredi-Sánchez, 2019).
14
Taking a stand on a divisive issue is a new approach to reaching target consumers at the same
time as assuring market relevance over a longer period of time. Lin (2018) explores the
different roles of brand activism through the ages. Historically, companies have wanted to
avoid interfering with sociopolitical controversies and have taken a rather passive role in
society (Mirzaei et al., 2022; Lin, 2018). In contrast to before, companies have taken a new
authoritative role that enters the political field which extensively influences society,
consumers, and the way of doing business (Lin, 2018). Much of advertising today
demonstrates the evident relationship between brands and the political field. Since just
presenting product characteristics is not enough in the contemporary competitive market,
brands need to stand for something that extends beyond physical traits (Mirzaei et al., 2022).
Sarkar and Kotler (2020) describe brand activism as companies that are driven by the
common good instead of being profit-seeking while Manfredi-Sánchez (2019) introduces the
topic as companies’ right to be heard. Brand activism is an umbrella term that includes
different types of directions. There is a consensus between Sarkar and Kotler (2020) and
Manfredi-Sánchez (2019) that the types of brand activism entail engaging in issues regarding
politics and laws, economy and business, environment as well as social matters. The social
aspect has become a larger part of the marketplace, where consumers make more conscious
buying decisions and companies take a stand in various matters through marketing (Lin,
2018). Sociopolitical activism deals with equality issues in several aspects, such as gender,
race, and age in interaction with political factors. Therefore, it is possible for companies to
develop and communicate marketing activities with very different content but still, be
considered as engaging in brand activism (Lin, 2018). A common pattern in sociopolitical
activist campaigns is that they often advocate values that are aligned with progressive ideas.
It is very unusual that companies choose to highlight values that seek to preserve the status
quo (Lin, 2018). However, engaging in brand activism also entails being cautious because if a
brand’s communicated values are not reflected in its actual behavior, there is a risk of being
perceived as inauthentic (Manfredi-Sánchez, 2019). Schmidt et al. (2022) emphasize previous
research that has shown that brands should refrain from taking a stand on highly politicized
matters since they risk alienating and antagonizing potential customers.
The development towards taking a stand is also driven by a change in consumer expectations
on brand behavior to not only engage in profit-making activities but also work to improve
society as a whole (Lin, 2018). According to Sarkar and Kotler (2020), consumers expect
15
brands to promote change. Especially, if a brand’s target group is progressive and looking for
a change, it is of importance that the brand is aligned with these values as well (Sarkar &
Kotler, 2020). Mirzaei et al. (2022) argue that brand activism has become a practice that is
easier to engage in due to new information technology, such as the emergence of social
media. These channels offer companies larger opportunities and means to take a stand on
contemporary issues that reach millions of users. Social media have also made it possible for
consumers to put large pressure on unethical brands (Mirzaei et al., 2022). In other words,
companies operate in a riskier market where one bad incident can hurt a brand severely.
An increasing number of brands strive to improve society and to be more than a
profit-making company (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020). In cases where governments turn their backs
on important issues, companies take a stand to mitigate societal injustice. According to
Sarkar and Kotler (2020), progressive brands are more forward-thinking and regarded as
leaders in their fields. “Woke” is another word that describes proactive brands, meaning that
they are alert to societal issues. Brand activism can be regarded as a natural development of
Corporate Social Responsibility but implies greater risks meanwhile it can yield potential
higher profits (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020).
2.4 Brand Authenticity
Previous research emphasizes the important relationship between authenticity and brand
activism, as genuineness is a crucial element that will determine whether brands succeed with
activism or not. Schmidt et al. (2022) conclude that authenticity is a fundamental issue for
brands that adopt activism behavior. Mirzaei et al. (2022) argue that a lack of authenticity
when engaging in brand activism can result in a consumer backlash. Awareness of what
elements determine the level of authenticity can contribute to an understanding of how brand
activism should be and not be dealt with.
Brand authenticity is a common aspiration within the field of marketing (Södergren, 2022).
At the same time as consumers use brands in their identity constructions in the contemporary
consumer society, they also face an abundance of information and increased
commercialization. To determine what brands are most relevant, consumers often search for
those that are genuine and legitimate (Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin & Grohmann,
2015). According to Mirzaei et al. (2022) authenticity has become superior to quality, in
16
terms of what consumers consider in a purchase decision. When engaging in brand activism
in inauthentic ways, there is a risk that the brand is accused of woke washing. As a
consequence, consumers may boycott the brand. It is commonly occurring that consumers are
distrustful of companies that engage in brand activism, thinking it is a marketing trick
(Mirzaei et al., 2022). Achieving brand authenticity is an essential element in preventing
consumer distrust and being accused of woke washing. If consumers believe that the brand’s
intentions are honest and authentic, it is more likely that they buy the brand’s products and
show support for it (Mirzaei et al., 2022). Authenticity is therefore a critical point for
companies that are taking a stand on social issues since it can either make or break the
marketing strategy. However, Beverland, Lindgreen, and Vink (2008) claim that it is difficult
for brands to use mass marketing in an attempt to achieve an authentic image because they
are perceived as contradictory. When discussing brand activism, it is fundamental to
incorporate authenticity to gain a greater knowledge of how companies can take a stand
without being regarded as dishonest.
Mirzaei et al. (2022) conclude that several important elements determine the level of brand
authenticity when companies take a stand. An essential aspect of authenticity is social context
independency which focuses on to what degree a company’s woke marketing is separate from
currently discussed issues (Mirzaei et al., 2022). There is a risk that companies that engage in
trendy societal issues are perceived as seizing the opportunity only to gain attention and
doing it for the wrong reasons. Hence, companies that only take a stand on recently emerged
issues are likely to be accused of “free riding” and regarded as inauthentic. Another aspect is
fit, which considers the level of alignment between the type of issue that a company engages
in and the company’s core business, culture, or image (Mirzaei et al., 2022). If there is a fit
between these, it is likely that the authenticity is strengthened, while a misfit leads to the
opposite. Holt (2004) claims that brands cannot take a stand on issues without offering an
insight into how the standpoint can be connected to the core business. It coincides with what
Du et al. (2010) conclude; companies that engage in a social cause without a clear alignment
to their business should argue why it supports the cause. Making consumers better understand
a perhaps otherwise unclear connection between the company and the problem can increase
the perception of the fit. Motivation is a third aspect to acknowledge when discussing a
brand’s degree of authenticity which is affected by the intentions and purpose behind taking a
stand (Mirzaei et al., 2022). Whether a company’s brand activism intentions are perceived as
hidden to increase profits or as honest and amicable, is crucial for how authentic the company
17
is perceived to be. When a brand’s advertising mainly focuses on a sociopolitical message
rather than on its products or itself, it is more likely that consumers suspect ulterior and
egotistic motives (Du et al., 2010). Sacrifice considers to what degree a brand is willing to
forfeit profit when engaging in societal issues (Mirzaei et al., 2022). To gain authenticity,
brands need to take concrete measures to show that they are financially committed to the
issues. Schmidt et al. (2022) claim that actions aligning with purpose and values regardless of
the costs they may cause could potentially result in a more positive perception of a brand and
its activism.
2.5 Consumer Skepticism
At the same time as consumers have expectations about companies and want to know about
what actions are taken regarding social responsibility, they also have a suspicious approach
towards companies that loudly advocate their brand activism efforts (Du et al., 2010). Du et
al. (2010) claim that there are two ways in which consumers usually perceive a company’s
underlying reasons behind taking a stand: intrinsic and extrinsic. The former is a description
of when consumers regard a company’s standpoint as genuine and authentic, which usually
results in a positive perception of the brand. The latter is when a brand’s activism is perceived
as a way of increasing profits, which creates a more negative approach towards the brand
(Du et al., 2010). These findings highlight that there are two sides to the perspective of brand
activism and engaging in social issues. One where consumers believe that the brand activism
efforts are motivated to reach social change and one where the altruistic motive is doubted
and is rather motivated by the desire for business profits. Consequently, this gives rise to
consumer skepticism  (Du et al., 2010).
The paradox that consumers want companies to take a stand on social issues at the same time
as they are skeptical about communication of such efforts can be explained by ad skepticism
(Brønn & Vrioni, 2001). As stated by Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) a skeptic is a description
of “a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief”. Further, skeptics are people
who distrust the substance of something being communicated (Brønn & Vrioni, 2001). The
concept of ad skepticism can be a suitable explanatory model for understanding why
consumers are suspicious of advertising and do not trust the claims being made (Obermiller,
Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005). Consumers usually become skeptical when they doubt
the underlying motives of a brand activist claim. The level of skepticism is also connected to
18
when a company's claim is inconsistent with the actual actions. Moreover, the use of
skepticism is a way of protecting oneself from being misled by false marketing efforts (Kim
& Lee, 2009). Also, the more a consumer understands the marketing strategy of a brand, the
more skeptical they become of the claims being made.
However, it should be noted that skeptical consumers are not completely resistant to
advertising and marketing communication. Consumers tend to be less suspicious of new
types of marketing practices since it is harder to recognize the underlying motive (Kim &
Lee, 2009). Although, as that strategy and the underlying goals become more well known, the
more skeptical consumers become (Obermiller et al., 2005). Obermiller et al. (2005) also
claim that skeptics respond better to emotional communication rather than informational
approaches. Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill (2006) state that timing is a crucial component
when communicating a company’s standpoint. Consumers are more skeptical of companies
taking stands for ongoing social issues and tend to question whether it has altruistic motives
or not (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006).
19
3 Methodology
The following section is a description of the method used in the study. The research approach
as well as its advantages and disadvantages is described. Further, a walkthrough of
participant selection, interview structure, and data analysis is provided. The quality of the
research is examined by discussing our approach on research ethics and trustworthiness.
3.1 Research Approach
Since the aim of the study is to gain a deeper understanding of Generation Z’s perceptions of
sociopolitical brand activism, a qualitative research approach was used. The research method
focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of the object of study (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The
use of methods within the approach aims to reveal perceptions and feelings at the same time
as the focus is placed on words and images (Baines, Fill & Rosengren, 2017; Bryman & Bell,
2015).
An advantage of a qualitative research method is that we as researchers can observe and
approach research participants in a closer way to see the social world from their perspective
(Bryman & Bell, 2015). Hence, a qualitative method helps researchers explore what happens
beneath the surface of people. Since the research aim seeks to explore Generation Z’s
perceptions about brand activism, it is appropriate to apply a qualitative research method. A
drawback of a qualitative approach is the risk of subjectivity. That is, collected data is colored
by researchers' views and opinions (Bryman & Bell, 2015), which we had to consider
carefully when collecting and analyzing the research material. Furthermore, we also
considered the relation between theory and research where an inductive research approach
was used, which is mostly taken when using qualitative research methods (Bryman & Bell,
2015). The research paper does not intend to make any generalizing conclusions about entire
populations, but rather to obtain a deeper understanding of a delimited target group and
therefore be able to make theoretical generalizations.
The purpose of the research is exploratory in which we have gained extensive knowledge
about a specific problem area, namely brand activism and perceptions of it. According to
Patel and Davidson (2011), explorative research entails illuminating a certain problem area
comprehensively and from different perspectives. By adopting this approach, Generation Z’s
perceptions and outlooks on brands taking a stand could be explored (Bryman & Bell, 2015).
20
3.2 Interviews
To collect empirical material, a series of interviews were conducted. Since the research was
conducted from a consumer perspective and aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the
interviewees’ perceptions of brand activism, qualitative interviewing is an appropriate
research method (Bryman & Bell, 2015). A semi-structured interview approach was used
which is characterized by flexibility and opened up for adaptation to the interviewees
(Bryman & Bell, 2015). This type of interview also implied preparing an interview guide as a
direction but also allowed for follow-up questions and questions that emerged at the time (see
Appendix 1). Hence, the interview guide aimed to lead the interviews in the right direction,
but at the same time allowed for fluctuations.
The advantage of a semi-structured interview approach is that the interview guide offers a
direction on what topic should be explored, while also enabling the interviewee to more
freely express their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions about the topic (Bryman & Bell,
2015), which aligns with our aim. Furthermore, the strength of the semi-structured approach
was that we as interviewers were less likely to control the respondent and influence the
person with our expectations and perceptions. The approach was a deliberate choice since we
wanted to encourage elaboration and discussion that probably would not occur in a more
structured interview form. Instead, an unstructured approach made it possible for us as
researchers to obtain the authentic worldview of the interviewees (Bryman & Bell, 2015).
According to Adams (2015), critique has been directed towards semi-structured interviews
for being time and effort consuming. Preparation, execution, and analysis are all part of a
long process that places high demands on the interviewers and the interviewees (Adams,
2015). Since our research aim was to explore consumer perceptions, this method was most
appropriate and therefore we chose to put a lot of time and energy into the whole interview
process to achieve our purpose with both accuracy and precision.
In preparation, a pilot interview was conducted to test our interview guide and ensure a high
quality of our research. Thereafter 14 interviews were conducted ranging from 28 minutes to
56 minutes and were made in person to better capture gestures, facial expressions, and other
non-verbal clues. According to Bryman and Bell (2015), interviewers need to be observant of
the interviewees' body language and what they do. Initially, we informed the participants
about the purpose of the interview, and with their consent, the interviews were
21
audio-recorded to simplify the transcription and analysis process. The recordings were also
vital since it is not just interesting what interviewees say, but also how they say it (Bryman &
Bell, 2015). The interviews were held in Swedish since it is the native language of the
participants, which was a deliberate decision to avoid misunderstandings and language
difficulties. In this way, the interviewees could speak more freely in their own language and
we could obtain deeper insight into the participants' perceptions and feelings. In other words,
we were able to gain deeper and more valuable empirical material. However, Bryman and
Bell (2015) claim that there may be problems with translating interview data because it is an
interpretive process. Thus, the data retrieved may have been influenced by the translation
from Swedish to English.
3.3 Participant Selection
Whereas the research has a qualitative approach, we conducted purposive sampling (Bryman
& Bell, 2015). The sampling was made in accordance with the aim of the study, thus people
who are representatives of Generation Z. The first interviewees were selected from a
convenience point of view, meaning that we interviewed people we are acquainted with
(Bryman & Bell, 2015). We asked these interviewees if they had friends and family, which
are representatives of Generation Z, who were willing to participate in our research. A
snowball sampling was therefore also conducted (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In addition to
having representatives from Generation Z, we tried to achieve a mixed selection of gender. In
addition to this, all of the interviewees come from Sweden but reside in various cities. To
achieve anonymity for the respondents, they have been given a pseudonym (see Table 1).
As the aim of the study is to investigate Generation Z’s perceptions and views of social brand
activism, the population consists of representatives from this target group. This limitation
includes people born between 1995 and 2010. Hence, people that are representatives of other
generations are excluded from the research. Generation Z is in general aware of the research
topic and has high expectations of companies today, which is why we expected them to be
able to debate brand activism and have clear perceptions of it.
22
Table 1: Participant information
Pseudonym Age Gender City Interview time
Adam 22 Male Ystad 41 minutes
Albin 24 Male Göteborg 32 minutes
Anna 23 Female Lund 35 minutes
Elin 22 Female Lund 46 minutes
Elsa 17 Female Ystad 28 minutes
Emil 24 Male Göteborg 42 minutes
Filip 27 Male Uppsala 56 minutes
Josefine 22 Female Skövde 38 minutes
Julia 27 Female Uppsala 33 minutes
Malin 24 Female Göteborg 37 minutes
Oliver 24 Male Malmö 37 minutes
Olle 25 Male Göteborg 33 minutes
Sara 26 Female Göteborg 35 minutes
Simon 26 Male Göteborg 47 minutes
3.4 Interview Structure
The interviews were initiated with general questions to get the conversation started, where the
interviewees had the chance to describe themselves and were asked what was important in
their choice of brands. The interviewees were then asked questions regarding their favorite
brands and what they stand for, which led to discussions about if they believed companies
should do more than selling goods and services. Further, questions that dealt more
specifically with brand activism were asked. Interviewees were shown cases that illustrate
how the brands Gillette, Pepsi and Arla have chosen to take a stand on various issues, which
are explained further in section 4 Case Descriptions . This was made to facilitate for the
respondents to talk about the topic and to gain a deeper understanding of the perceptions of
brand activism. We deliberately chose to present cases from familiar Business-to-Consumer
brands to make it easier for the respondent in the discussion and to be able to answer without
specific prior knowledge.
23
The interviews also placed great focus on the respondents' views on companies taking a stand
in conjunction with the war in Ukraine, which is part of the research aim. In the context of
Russia invading Ukraine, many companies have chosen to take, and not take, certain
measures. For example, some companies have stopped selling their products or stopped
production in Russia. In this section, the respondents were asked to discuss the issue and
express their opinion about how they believe that companies should act. For example, it was
presented that Apple, Nike, and Netflix pulled out of Russia at a relatively early stage (Sozzi
& Semenova, 2022). McDonald’s and Coca-Cola withdrew after mounting pressure from
consumers meanwhile Hilton’s and Mondelez’s core business remains in the country (Biron,
2022). After gaining insight into the subject with the help of the cases, questions were asked
about the respondents' perception of whether companies should take a position or not and, if
so, in what way. Finally, we asked if there was anything the respondents wanted to add and
then thanked them for the interview.
3.5 Data Analysis
According to Bryman and Bell (2015), the data analysis stage includes several components,
such as transcription and coding. All interviews were transcribed quickly after they were
conducted to ensure that everything was included to facilitate analysis of the empirical
material. Bryman and Bell (2015) claim that transcribing interviews can be very time
consuming, but it was done in our research because it facilitated the data analysis. Just after
all the interviews were transcribed, they were translated into English. The transcripts formed
the basis of the material used in the data analysis, which then was coded. Coding the data
implicates scrutinizing and categorizing the material into different labels and themes. This
was done for the purpose of finding recurring patterns within and between transcripts to make
sense of the retrieved data (Bryman & Bell, 2015). As a result, our empirical material was
reduced and turned into being more manageable and approachable.
3.6 Research Ethics
According to Patel and Davidson (2011), there are high demands on research to be conducted
credibly and to maintain high quality. To ensure that the collection of data took place in an
ethically secure manner, some measures and research ethics aspects were taken into
consideration. Patel and Davidson (2011) establish four main ethical requirements for
research regarding information, consent, confidentiality, and use, which we strived to fulfill.
24
Firstly, we informed the respondents about the purpose of the research and what the
information they contributed would be used for. We also reminded the respondents that the
interview participation is optional and thereafter asked them for consent before recording the
interviews, which was done to facilitate the transcription work. Furthermore, to fulfill the
confidentiality requirement we informed and assured the respondents that their contributions
to the study were anonymous. Hence, other names are used in the research paper. To satisfy
the requirement of use, it was of importance for us to inform the interviewees that the
retrieved material will be used for research purposes only.
3.7 Trustworthiness
Validity and reliability are important aspects to consider in research but are usually linked to
a quantitative approach. The two concepts may be relevant in a qualitative method but must
be applied differently. However, as they are deeply rooted in the quantitative part of the
research, the use of these terms can be considered inappropriate in a qualitative approach.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose that the alternative criteria of trustworthiness should be
used when evaluating qualitative research. Furthermore, there are four aspects of
trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
The credibility aspect aims to assure congruence between the respondents’ views and how
they are reflected in the research study (Bryman & Bell, 2015). It is an important aspect that
ensures that we as researchers have interpreted the social world and the respondents'
perceptions correctly. One approach to achieving credibility is the practice of respondent
validation. We handled this criterion by letting two of the respondents read the essay and
asking them if we have grasped their perceptions correctly. For two additional respondents,
we showed how we had presented their answers and quotes in section 5 Empirical Findings
and Analysis and let them accept or adjust them. We explained our findings verbally to
additional two respondents. Furthermore, since semi-structured interviews were conducted, it
enabled more open answers about the topic where the respondents had the chance to explore
what they wanted within the boundaries of the subject. Hence, the respondents could discuss
issues that they found relevant and substantial (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In addition, the
respondents answered anonymously which further opened up for genuine and truthful
responses. Therefore, the credibility is strengthened since the interviewees' expressed views
probably reflect the social reality which thus facilitates our interpretation of it.
25
Transferability is also a vital aspect to consider since qualitative research is based on studies
on smaller groups or individuals with specific traits (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In this case, the
study aimed towards exploring the perceptions of consumers belonging to Generation Z.
Moreover, a qualitative approach and its findings are affected by a study’s context. Lincoln
and Guba (1985) claim that there is an empirical issue if a study’s findings do not hold in
other contexts. In our research, the respondents were shown concrete examples of brands
taking a stand, which could affect the transferability negatively since we cannot ensure that
our findings are transferable and applicable to all brands that engage in brand activism.
However, the aim of this study is not to make generalizations, but to gain a deeper
understanding of the perceptions and thoughts members of Generation Z have on brand
activism. We want to emphasize that it is not possible to generalize our findings of the
representatives of Generation Z to the whole generation, nor is it possible to generalize the
findings to other generations. This is further discussed in section 7.2 Limitations and Future
Research.
The dependability aspect considers if the findings would be constant if the study was
replicated (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Therefore, the study needs clear accounts of the research
process and how the researchers have proceeded, which are thoroughly presented in this
methodology chapter. Furthermore, since we experienced a high level of saturation in the
interviews the dependability aspect is met.
Lastly, we have taken the aspect of confirmability into account, meaning that we as
researchers have had an objective approach when conducting and interpreting the interviews
(Bryman & Bell, 2015). We have endeavored to not let our values and beliefs be expressed,
either in the performance of the interviews or interpretation of the findings. The interviews
were executed in good faith and we asked open questions and encouraged the respondent to
explore their own thoughts and ideas.
26
4 Case Descriptions
In the interviews, three different marketing activities were shown to the interviewees. The
purpose was to illustrate how different sociopolitical brand activism actions can look like and
obtain a deeper understanding of the interviewees’ perceptions about these. The upcoming
section describes the marketing activities, aiming to provide a greater understanding of these
before the results and analysis are presented.
4.1 Gillette
In 2019, the razor and personal care brand Gillette launched a short film with the title “We
Believe: The Best Men Can Be” (Gillette, 2019). The title was a way of playing with the
brand’s thirty-year-old tagline of “The Best A Man Can Get” (Gillette, n.d.). The campaign
takes a stand in the MeToo movement where Gillette aims to break today's image of
masculinity and the “boys will be boys'' mentality. Further, the brand seeks to portray a
positive and inclusive image of men that will challenge the stereotypes and expectations that
exist on men today. The commercial begins with four men of different ages looking at
themselves in a mirror and in the background, there are several audio sounds saying
“Bullying”, “The MeToo movement against sexual harassment” and “Toxic masculinity”.
Then, the narrator asks: “Is this the best a man can get?” (Gillette, 2019). Thereafter different
scenes and situations of bullying and sexual harassment are shown while the phrase “boys
will be boys” is repeated. Suddenly, the story changes and the narrator says: “But something
finally changed… And there will be no going back” in conjunction with several news
reporting clips of the MeToo movement being displayed. Thenceforth, clips, where men
confront each other in situations of bullying, fights and sexual harassment of women, are
displayed. At the end of the film, the narrator says: “Because the boys watching today will be
the men of tomorrow” (Gillette, 2019).
4.2 Pepsi
The commercial “Live for now” starring the supermodel Kendall Jenner, was launched by the
brand Pepsi in 2017. The campaign aimed to show how “people from different social strata
come together” (BBC News, 2017). The commercial follows different individuals that
eventually meet up in a demonstration with people holding signs saying: “Join the
conversation” and “Love” (Yadav, 2017). Later on, there is a scene illustrating a photoshoot
with the supermodel Kendall Jenner. People in the demonstration are happy, dancing, playing
27
music, and showing the peace sign with their hands. Some of them also drink from Pepsi
products. When Jenner notices the demonstration, she takes off her blonde wig and leaves the
photoshoot to join the demonstration. She then grabs a can of Pepsi and walks up to a
policeman and hands over the can, which he opens and takes a sip of. Everyone in the
demonstration and the policemen look happy and cheerful. The commercial ends with the text
“Live Bolder”, “Live Louder” and then the tagline “Live for Now” together with the Pepsi
logo (Yadav, 2017).
4.3 Arla
In conjunction with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the dairy brand Arla chose to stop selling
their product “Kefir”, a sour milk product, temporarily. On the packaging the Red Square in
Moscow, Russia is illustrated (see Figure 1). Below the illustration, there is a text saying:
“The Russian sour milk culture” (Via TT, 2021). Arla’s communication manager claimed that
the decision was based on the fact that the brand did not want to be associated with Russia
and the Russian regime (Berisha, 2022).
Figure 1: Arla (Via TT, 2021)
28
5 Empirical Findings & Analysis
This section is a presentation of the empirical findings from the interviews and an analysis of
them. Equal to the aim of the research, understanding of the findings highlights respondents’
perceptions of brands taking a stand on sociopolitical issues and how they believe brands
should operate regarding the subject. Further, respondents’ insights and opinions about
companies taking a stand on the Ukraine war are analyzed. The empirical findings and
analysis of them will be presented in themes that emerged when analyzing the results based
on the theoretical framework.
5.1 Expectations of Brands
When asking the respondents about what brands and companies should do beyond just
producing, selling and promoting their products and services, different sociopolitical
standpoints is not the first thing they mention. Rather, it is mainly emphasized by the
respondents that they believe that companies have large responsibilities regarding their value
chain and what happens in the business internally. Simon states that companies should have
responsibility for their value and supply chain, meaning that the operations should be
sustainable and have net-zero in its resource commitment and that companies should have
fair terms for their employees. Some respondents highlight the fact that brands today need to
promote societal change and not just aim toward making profits (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020; Lin,
2018). Josefine believes that it is self-evident to work with the environment and social
sustainability. These statements correspond to what Chaney et al. (2017) state about
Generation Z and that they are socially conscious and have high expectations of brands. Olle
is on a similar train of thought and states the following when he is asked about what he
believes companies and brands should do besides producing, selling, and promoting their
products and services:
They are responsible for taking care of their chain all the way, from production
to final product. They are responsible for doing advertising and marketing that
is fair and does not harass or insult anyone. But they have no responsibility
perhaps to do something further if they do not include it in their branding in
any way. Of course, they also have a big role in society to act well or to set a
good example, but that is also like, you have to be that today anyway,
otherwise no one chooses them.
29
Further, the respondents are in a constant search for brands that align with their values, in
which the search process is facilitated when brands take a stand (Francis & Hoefl, 2018).
Oliver claims that when companies take a stand on an important issue, he often re-evaluates
his perception of the brand to investigate whether he shares the company’s values or not.
Anna agrees with this by claiming: “ So I think to a large extent I am looking for brands that
have similar values as I do.” This aligns with Mirzaei et al. (2022), who argue that consumers
look beyond the physical product to search for values instead. However, many of the
respondents do not base their choice of brand solely on values. For example, Julia often
prioritizes brands with proper values, but she also considers price and quality when choosing
a product and brand.
5.2 Perceptions of Brand Activism
Most respondents express positive views on brand activism because they believe it is a valid
concept in which brands should take larger social responsibility. Adam expresses it as
companies taking a stand can contribute to spreading a larger awareness of societal issues.
Sara claims that all companies should have an ethical thought behind their core business at
the same time as Elin states that it adds value to companies' products and services when they
engage in brand activism. This statement aligns with Mirzaei et al. (2022) who argue that
younger generations care about brands that engage in social issues and movements. Many of
the respondents also believe that large and well-established brands have a greater social
responsibility. Filip claims:
Companies have the absolute best communication with the everyday consumer.
They also have a really big and solid platform to use to express their values. I
think that all companies should be free to take a stand and show their values,
which can guide consumers forward toward a better society.
This emphasizes the important relationship between companies and consumers. They have a
constant important dialogue where companies have a potentially great impact on consumers.
The statement also shows that Filip believes that companies should express their values,
which is consistent with previous research on brand activism and what is required of brands
today (Lin, 2018; Sarkar & Kotler, 2020).
30
At the same time, some interviewees share the opinion that companies should be careful
when adopting a brand activism behavior. The majority considered the aspect of brands
exploiting societal problems for their gain. Du et al. (2010) claim that such distrust results in
a higher level of consumer skepticism towards the brand and its activism. Filip is one of the
respondents that expresses hesitation towards brand activism since companies’ main aim is to
earn profits by selling their products. Hence, he regards marketing activities that include
taking a stand as deceitful and unreliable. Filip also believes that it is wrong that companies
take advantage of serious matters “and turn it into an advertising gimmick”. In accordance
with Du et al. (2010), this is a case of when a consumer views a brand’s activist actions as
extrinsic, which creates a negative approach towards the company. He uses Pepsi’s
commercial as an example of this and claims that the commercial affected his perception of
the brand Pepsi negatively. Filip stresses that it is positive if Pepsi wants to support the
movement but that it has been done in the wrong way because of the trivialization. He is
aware of the large criticism Pepsi faced on social media after launching the commercial. It
reveals the fact that companies operate in a risky market when they enter into brand activism,
as one misstep can negatively affect the brand, which aligns with what Mirzaei et al. (2022)
conclude.
However, Anna can see potential in brand activism despite its flaws and refers to the case of
Pepsi. In a way, she perceives it as an effective commercial since it is provoking reactions
and conversations which calls for continued discussion on important problems in society.
Emil also believes that Pepsi’s commercial has created a valuable debate and has helped
spread a large awareness of racial injustice. Sara agrees with this reasoning, and at the same
time as she argues that Pepsi’s commercial was rather tone deaf, she also claims:
Pepsi created something bad and received criticism, then you have to deal with
the criticism and the next time you choose to do or not do it, then maybe you do
it in a better way. Somehow, it's a bit of learning by doing, I think. [...] So then
I think it's better to take a stand and try to do something right even if it turns
out bad anyway.
Overall, it can be determined that brand activism is a complex topic that evokes mixed
feelings. There are several cases where the respondents can identify and agree with the
message of the brand activism action but do not approve of the way the messages were
31
expressed. An example of this is Filip’s statement: “Because even if it does not feel so
genuine with what they really want, it is still a good message. Their goals may be a bit
sketchy but their paths to get there are good.”
5.3 Authenticity & Skepticism
In the respondents’ assessment of brand activism, it becomes clear that a common perception
is the absence of authenticity and the presence of skepticism when taking a stand. This
discussion often arises when the respondents see that the position taken is not in line with a
brand’s business. Furthermore, authenticity becomes a recurring topic when it comes to
contemporary and trendy issues that result in the respondents questioning whether brands
care about the issue.
A frequent response, when asking the respondents about their perceptions of the marketing
cases, is that they believe that it is a marketing ploy. It strengthens the argument made by
Mirzaei et al. (2022), which is that consumers often are critical of companies that take a stand
on various issues because it is suspected to be a marketing trick. As an example, when
discussing the Gillette commercial, Simon states that he likes the commercial and is
impressed with the advertising agency who created it, rather than Gillette as the messenger.
Further, he states the following about the commercial:
I think that the final clip should have led to something in the advertisement.
Now it was just "Go to this website and join the change" which feels a bit fuzzy.
It feels more that they have done an action that they can then include in their
CSR report: "We have done this activity this year, developed this fantastic
campaign". It feels like they use the MeToo movement. I think they would
rather use it than do actual work for it.
This statement aligns with what Mirzaei et al. (2022) describe as woke washing. It occurs
when a brand takes a stand in a way that is perceived as unfounded and inauthentic.
Consumers do not trust that the brand works for the message they are trying to convey and
therefore believe it to be a marketing trick (Mirzaei et al., 2022). Similar arguing is found
when Malin explains her thought after watching Gillette’s commercial:
32
Honestly, I am getting a little tired of this type of video. Because it does not feel
like the right action. Why do they make a video like this when the girl razors
that they make cost about ten kroner more? It bothers me a little. I have that
feeling, I'm not convinced.
Malin has the perception that the message Gillette tries to convey in the commercial is
unsupported by the actions that the brand actually makes. That the brand addresses the
equality issue while the prices between the brand's male and female products differ, indicates
that there is a discrepancy between message and actual action. Malin’s doubtfulness towards
Gillette’s commercial can be explained by consumer skepticism, which is why she does not
trust the claims being made (Kim & Lee, 2009).
It is a recurring pattern for the respondents to discuss authenticity and genuineness as they
reason about how they perceive brand activism. It is often questioned how genuine it feels for
a certain brand to get involved in certain issues. For example, Emil claims that the Gillette
commercial “feels so out of place, because when a company takes a stand that sometimes has
nothing to do with the business, it does not feel genuine at all”. In this case, he questions why
a razor company is involved in the MeToo-movement. It seems like the authenticity is
negatively affected when companies' core business does not correspond to the issue
companies take a stand on. Albin is reasoning in the same way regarding the Gillette
commercial, where he believes that it is a good commercial with a nice message, but is also
questioning the connection between razors and social change:
It was well done. Maybe I think it is a bit ridiculous that their razors are going
to make men better people. I do not see the connection there. I believe that it is
right what they say in the commercial and they are very right in that. But I do
not see how razors have anything to do with it.
Based on this, it seems to be important that when engaging in brand activism, the issues that a
brand engages in, should align with the core business of the company, to achieve authenticity.
Mirzaei et al. (2022) refer to this as “fit” and describe it as to what extent brand engagement
and core business, culture or image of the company are consistent. Sara states that brands
should engage in brand activism only when it is genuine, and not just for the sake of it. She
further uses an example to illustrate when it is appropriate for brands to take a stand:
33
If it is in line with what they stand for otherwise. But why should they take a
stand on things they have nothing to do with? For example, Nike made this
campaign with Colin Kaepernick and take a knee. And that is in line with the
fact that they [Nike] have a lot to do with sports and everyone's equal value.
They have many black athletes who represent them, then it would have been
strange not to stand up for their rights. [...] But they may not have to stand up
for animal activism. Take things that concern your area.
Furthermore, Albin says that companies should avoid engaging in brand activism just
because it is a trendy opinion or issue. He argues that many brands capitalize on feminism,
meaning that they communicate that they care about feminism, when in fact Albin thinks that
they do not. When discussing the Gillette commercial, Sara believes that the fact that the
commercial was launched in conjunction with the MeToo movement and not before or now, a
few years later, made it less trustworthy. She explains that the brand approached something
trendy and questions why the brand has not continued working with issues regarding female
injustice. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) claim that timing is a crucial component when taking a
stand and that consumers are more skeptical of companies taking a stand on ongoing issues.
Elin is reasoning in a similar way regarding the topic and states the following:
It is important that firms do not capitalize on every issue that is raised, but that
they choose their core values that are important to them and what they want to
work with and then continue to work with that. Because otherwise, it might not
be so credible if you jump on every trend.
What is stated above can be viewed as an example of what Mirzaei et al. (2022) refer to as
“social context independency”. The aspect is a description of when brands engage in
sociopolitical issues that are current and trendy, which makes consumers question if the
company engages in the issue for the right, authentic reasons or just wants to seize an
opportunity to gain attention. Consequently, taking a stand on ongoing issues can be risky
since consumers can perceive that action as inauthentic.
Many of the respondents believe that a brand’s authenticity is reliant on what the intentions
are behind taking a stand. It is similar to the aspect of “motivation” (Mirzaei et al., 2022).
Elsa believes that a large number of companies take advantage of societal issues by taking a
34
stand to gain larger profits. Simon claims that it is more likely to be perceived as authentic if
the decision to take a stand is based on empathy, rather than having a financial motive. He
also believes that brand activism is something deeper than ”just producing a commercial”.
The most important thing is that companies genuinely want to do good and look beyond
pursuing profits. Sara is hesitant about Gillette’s intentions behind the commercial. The brand
may have put up a ”fake show” where she is unsure whether Gillette actually cares or not.
Filip is suspicious of Gillette's sudden step towards trying to reduce female injustices and
considers it as “an attempt to override Gillette's previous commercials that happily
highlighted this particular male stereotype and image”.
It becomes clear that brand authenticity also is determined by ”sacrifice”, which is a brand’s
willingness to prioritize societal issues over profits, as Mirzaei et al. (2022) conclude. Emil
discusses the relation between authenticity and forfeiting profits by claiming:
I think companies are genuine when they take a stand and somehow lose
money. Because a company is money, right? So that's probably the only way
they can actually show that they genuinely care about the issue and prioritize it
over profits. So it is to say: "We do not care what we are [a company], because
we want to act". Then I think it is authentic and genuine.
Emil questions how genuine brand activism can be since a company’s fundamental purpose is
to make profits. He believes that Gillette and Pepsi only wish to tell the world how good they
are, but in reality, they do not seem to care about the problem genuinely. Du et al. (2010)
describe this as consumers being suspicious of the underlying motives when brands’
commercials display taking a stand rather than on their products, because it is difficult to
overlook the real purpose of companies, which is to increase sales and profits. This is
reinforced when Filip states the following: “I think Gillette cares about the problem, but if
they had to choose between making a lot of money or showing these views, I think they
would choose the former.” Hence, a willingness to lose money is a clear indication of brand
authenticity.
35
5.4 How to Engage in Brand Activism
Solomon (2019) states that members of Generation Z want brands to be authentic and
transparent, which also is one of our findings. In discussions about brand activism, there is a
desire that brands must first and foremost be transparent in their activities. Elsa values brand
transparency, which should indicate what brands do and not do in sociopolitical issues. She
claims it can help consumers in their consumption choices. Albin believes that transparency
can legitimize a brand taking a stand because it can possibly reduce consumer skepticism and
create understanding of the brand's true intention. Clarity also seems to be an important
element for the respondents. Adam thinks that companies “can take a stand when consumers
understand the very position that is taken”, which he believed Pepsi did not succeed with.
This aligns with how Josefine reasons. She believes that Pepsi does not dare to “go all the
way” since they wish to please both sides of the debate without taking a real and clear
position. The message, the plot and the stance seem to be rather unclear, which results in
confused respondents.
Manfredi-Sánchez (2019) stresses the risk of being perceived as inauthentic when the brand
values are not reflected in the brand’s actual behavior. This reasoning can be applied to some
of the respondents’ ways of thinking of the importance of action, who argue that many
brands’ actions do not correspond with their expressed values. For example, Emil values
companies that take a stand by acting concretely and he claims that actions weigh more than
words, ”which many companies should learn from”. Emil claims that producing commercials
is not enough, but brands have to act consistently with their standpoint. Malin also believes
that Gillette should have shown how the brand works with female injustices and male
stereotypes, for example making a documentary instead of a commercial. Julia perceives
commercials that include taking a stand as something fake when she claims: “It can be a bit
for show. It is better to maybe donate money and take concrete measures than to just ‘flash’
with it and pretend that you care about the problems in commercials.” This statement can be
explained by the concept of ad skepticism, meaning that consumers believe that companies
should take a stand and act on social change, yet are suspicious of the claims being made in a
commercial regarding the issue (Obermiller et al., 2005). In addition, this can also be
connected to woke washing, where brands focus on appearing good externally instead of
taking effective action (Mirzaei et al., 2022). Julia feels that companies like to display what
they do when they are not really doing anything.
36
Many respondents have the opinion that they do not want brands to become too political or
take stands on too specific issues. They rather want brands to focus on broader sociopolitical
issues that concern human rights and equality. For example, Oliver says that big, global
brands should take stands on sociopolitical issues since they are so powerful and can express
opinions on issues that regard the whole world. Continuously, Anna claims that it is positive
that brands support sociopolitical movements like MeToo and Black Lives Matter, but that
brands should not engage in too complicated and political issues since it could harm the
brand. Schmidt et al. (2022) state that it is a risk for brands to engage in highly politicized
issues and should thus be avoided. Elin argues similarly, saying:
But going too deep into the political debate is negative, I think. After all,
consumers themselves can choose and investigate those topics whether they
want it. I think it is nice with companies that stand up for human rights and
pride.
Reviewing the interviews, it can be noted that a pattern appears between the respondents’
feelings and opinions about the marketing cases. When the respondents are affected
emotionally, they often appreciate and are receptive towards the commercial or marketing
decision. On the contrary, when they claim that no feelings emerge viewing the marketing
activity, they do not believe the brand to be sincere about the message it tried to convey. As
an example, all of the respondents, except for two of them, do not believe that the Pepsi
commercial evokes any feelings. They are rather confused with the message and the content.
Hence, they do not believe the commercial to be trustworthy. Olle, on the other hand, likes
Pepsi’s commercial and states that he enjoyed the “vibe” of the commercial. Consequently, he
believes that the commercial is trustworthy. Similarly, Anna also likes the Pepsi commercial
since she thinks that it is happy and captivating. Moreover, she also thinks that the
commercial is trustworthy. Similar findings can be found when reviewing the responses about
Gillette’s commercial. Olle enjoys the commercial and is touched by the message and
believes it to be trustworthy. Further, he states that Gillette “got bigger, they lifted
themselves. They went from being a razor brand to being something bigger”. Josefine states
that she became teary-eyed watching the film and expresses it in the following way:
You still get quite strong feelings, partly for the brand for that slogan they have
always had and play with the words. This perspective on it makes you still
37
think that this is how they value the issue. It becomes very clear when they use
their own slogan. It was a very strong message. It clearly shows the brand’s
values.
Getting emotional seems to result in Josefine believing in the message and the values of the
brand. These results align with what Obermiller et al. (2005) conclude; consumers become
less skeptical and respond better to emotional communication.
5.5 The Special Case of the Ukraine War
The ongoing war in Ukraine has rekindled the debate on brand activism and how it should be
executed. Besides, earlier research has focused on cases of social political issues in the form
of movements against social injustices and not on cases like this. Therefore, we have chosen
to study the Ukraine war, in conjunction with brand activism, as a specific case which is why
it will be presented and analyzed separately.
5.5.1 An Insignificant Action?
The respondents are in general very divided in the case of Arla and its withdrawal of Kefir.
On one hand, the respondents see a value in that Arla is taking a stand and showing an
understanding of why the brand does not want to be associated with a warring country.
Josefine reasons that in a time when most companies are trying to show solidarity with
Ukraine, this is a way for Arla to do this as well. Because even though it is not an effective
measure that strikes against Russia, Arla nevertheless takes a clear position. Anna suggests
that taking a stand, despite the level of impact, is the most important thing in this case. It is
especially important since “Russia right now is probably the most charged word in the whole
world”, as Malin chooses to express herself. Since most of the respondents explicitly express
a disapproval of war and conflict, they can identify more with Arla as a brand. Oliver even
realizes that his trust for the brand has grown stronger. Many of the respondents appreciated
the way Arla decided to act by withdrawing a product they risk losing profits on, instead of
just expressing “empty words”. Emil, for example, argues that Arla reaches beyond taking a
stand through traditional advertising, but rather that consumers can witness actual action
which results in a better perception of Arla as a brand. This finding is in line with what
Schmidt et al. (2022) point to, namely that an alignment between actions and values no
matter the costs can have a positive impact on the perception of the brand.
38
On the other hand, some of the respondents regard Arla’s decision as rather unnecessary
because it does not make any real difference. Anna argues that consumers' purchases of Kefir
in Sweden will not affect Russia or the outcome of the war at all. Elsa claims that it may have
been better for Arla to take other more concrete measures that can make a bigger difference,
such as donating money to support Ukraine, instead of just removing a product. Adam
suspects that there is a preventive purpose behind this action so that Arla does not receive
criticism for not having done something about highlighting Russian associations on the
product. This can be connected back to the dimension of “motivation” (Mirzaei et al., 2022),
where Arla’s real intention behind the action can be questioned and result in a perceived lack
of authenticity as well as consumer skepticism. Many of the respondents share Adam’s
opinion, where they believe Arla’s action was based on avoiding the risk of being "canceled",
which would adversely affect the brand. Olle also questions the trustworthiness behind the
decision where he believes that Arla only takes such action to appear as a “good company”.
He also considers the company to be "riding the wave" that only engages in a trendy issue,
which is reminiscent of the aspect of “social context independency” (Mirzaei et al., 2022).
Furthermore, Josefine, Sara, Adam, Anna, and Elsa argue that it is a necessity to draw a
reasonable line between the war and old Russian culture (which includes Kefir). Hence, they
believe that it may be an exaggeration to remove everything Russian that is not relevant in
this situation.
There seem to be mixed emotions regarding Arla’s decision, where the respondents can
understand and argue for both sides. It becomes clear when Adam states:
I now realize that I understand both sides, both Arla's reason and the criticism
directed at it. It is difficult to say what is right and wrong, but I think
companies should take a stand when it can actually make a difference.
5.5.2 A Significant Action?
Simon is skeptical of both the Gillette and Pepsi commercial and is questioning the
genuineness behind them. On the contrary, asking about when, if and how companies should
withdraw from Russia, Simon states that it is a situation where companies and brands should
take a stand and that it will have an actual effect. He motivates it as follows:
39
Then you can actually make a direct difference. Then you want to pull out. [...]
And the earlier you pull out, the more credible it feels. Because if you are late,
it may feel like you do it because it gives a good image. That it is just a matter
of it being a business decision that is good financially. It increases credibility if
you do it, even though you may lose money on it. That it is a decision that is
based entirely on empathy or socially instead of purely financial.
Elin is reasoning in the same way stating that she appreciates that several brands have
withdrawn their businesses from Russia to take a stand. Despite risking a capital loss due to
this, they still choose to exit the Russian market, which according to Elin is a sign of
authenticity. Similarly, Olle says that he believes that the ones who boycotted Russia in an
earlier stage were more right, even though he can understand the companies pulling out a bit
later. However, he continues to explain that companies that are now still keeping operations
in the country are immoral because they choose profits over human lives. Again, it becomes
evident that brands should be willing to make sacrifices and lose financial resources when
engaging in social issues to achieve authenticity (Mirzaei et al., 2022).
Furthermore, respondents ask themselves if brands withdraw from the warring country due to
authentic concern or simply that everyone else does it. It strengthens the fact that the
authenticity dimension of “social context independency” is crucial, where a brand’s
authenticity can be negatively affected if it solely engages in trendy issues (Mirzaei et al.,
2022). Julia believes that several brands have “felt pressure from the outside world to
withdraw from the country and they probably just jumped on a ‘trend train’”.
Contrastingly, in this particular case, all respondents do not care about the meaning behind
the action, as long as brands actually withdraw their operations from Russia. For example,
Oliver states:
Taking a stand is the most important thing in situations like this. Even though
other companies laid low for a while at first, they have now taken a stand.
Whether they made the decision due to genuine values or pressure from actors
and consumers is no more important than that they made the decision to
withdraw from Russia.
40
At the same time, some respondents are divided on the issue. For example, Sara, Emil and
Julia are not quite sure about what they believe is the right action to take in the situation.
While they believe that it could be right to withdraw from the country to not support the
Russian regime, they also have the Russian people in consideration, feeling that they should
not be affected by something they are not responsible for. At first, Filip has a hard time
answering the question, to then explaining his thoughts on the matter:
I think you should end your business in Russia to put pressure on the Russian
regime and people. But on the other hand, I do not think you can set a time
limit on it because there are still people who are on the other side. In that case,
a company must be one hundred percent transparent in how it works with the
issue so that consumers understand how the brand reasons about the problem.
While Oliver does not think that the reason behind withdrawing from Russia matters, Filip
claims that it is important to him that companies are transparent about their reasons. It proves
once again that transparency and clarity are important elements for the respondents, which
aligns with the conclusion of Solomon (2019) that Generation Z seeks transparent and
straightforward companies.
Lastly, when asking Malin if brands, in general, should take a stand on sociopolitical issues
she answers that she believes it should be done when it is relevant and that the issue can be
connected to the core business. Further, she explains that the Pepsi commercial, the product
Pepsi and Black Lives Matter was an odd connection with no meaning. Whereas, she believes
that the Russian conflict is relevant for all companies to take a stand on. Malin states that:
Not taking a stand is to take a stand. And you have to ask yourself what values
you want to associate your brand with. And I agree with that. In this case, I
would not have wanted to have business in Russia at all.
41
6 Discussion
The following section is a discussion of the empirical findings and analysis. Concepts such as
expectations, authenticity and consumer skepticism are considered. We repeat the aim to
emphasize the analytical structure of the thesis: “The research aim is to investigate
Generation Z’s perceptions of brands that have taken a stand on socially political topics, in
general, and focus on some selected cases and companies that have done this regarding the
war in Ukraine, in particular. Moreover, the research seeks to gain a deeper understanding of
how Generation Z believes that brands should engage in brand activism.”
We can identify different findings that can offer a deeper understanding of how consumers of
Generation Z perceive brand activism and in what ways they believe brands should act in this
matter. Based on all the interviews with representatives of Generation Z, the theory of them
being a value driven and conscious generation (Chaney et al., 2017) agrees well with how
they have chosen to express themselves. In addition, it is true that they have high
expectations of brands and want them to take stands on various social and political issues, yet
only if it is done in the right way. It is clear that it is not enough for a brand to just take a
stand for Generation Z to believe it to be an action that creates value for the brand. The
respondents of Generation Z are very analytical of the actions being presented to them and of
brands taking a stand on sociopolitical issues. They often have long reasoning of what, how,
and when brands should take a stand, nevertheless when they should not take a stand. Further,
it is noted that Generation Z believes that brands should take a stand on broader sociopolitical
issues which have to do with human rights and equality. To clarify, brands should not take a
stand on highly politicized issues.
Our second finding indicates that it is important that brands’ standpoints and actions are in
alignment with one another. Respondents experience that brands tend to display their
engagement in social causes in commercials, but do not act accordingly in their business.
This often results in consumer disbelief and skepticism, which also Manfredi-Sanchez (2019)
claims. The perception of a brand can be negatively affected since it is believed that the brand
is only engaging in brand activism to gain profits and to be perceived as good outwardly. In
other words, a common perception of brands that engage in brand activism by expressing
empty words is that it is a marketing ploy. This also shows that respondents of Generation Z
are skeptical about the underlying reason behind when brands take a stand and question
42
whether they care about the problem at hand or are in pursuit of profits. Hence, respondents
are negative towards brand activism when they experience that brands are capitalizing on a
social issue. It has become clear that it is insufficient for brands to communicate their
standpoints in commercials. In other words, taking a stand without action is perceived as
unreliable and the brand is believed to be having hidden intentions. Brands need to consider
what issues they engage in and support. They are also perceived as inauthentic and taking
advantage of serious matters when they only engage in trendy issues. It is a common
perception that brand activism works as a new tool to deceive consumers where brands
pretend to care about contemporary issues when it in fact is a marketing ploy. One way to
possibly overcome consumer skepticism is by being clear and transparent of the brand
activism actions since it creates a greater understanding of brands’ true intentions.
Another finding is that brand activism is perceived to be dependable and beneficial when
brands are inclined to sacrifice profits to prioritize their work for the common good and a
better society. The respondents claim that brands who are willing to sacrifice profits are more
reliable and authentic, which demonstrates that brands should take a stand when they care for
a social cause to the extent of being open to forfeiting profits. Doing this, it can potentially
alleviate the obvious conflict between doing good and making money. The conflict is
described by Du et al. (2010) who claim that consumer skepticism often arises due to
suspicion of the brand’s real intentions behind the engagement in brand activism. It can be
determined that a lack of willingness to sacrifice, results in a perception that some brands
only are involved in brand activism for financial purposes. When the perceived motivation
behind a brand’s activism is to increase sales, a possible consequence is lowered consumer
trust and identification with the brand and its marketing efforts. Mukherjee and Althuizen
(2020) and Popp and Woratschek (2017) claim that brand activism can facilitate consumers to
discover brands’ standpoints and determine if they are in alignment with the consumers’
identity. In this case, consumer identification with a brand can be mitigated if the respondents
perceive taking a stand as a marketing ploy. Contrariwise, a brand’s sacrifice to support a
social cause is perceived as an indication of genuineness. Consequently, the respondents’
perception of the brand taking a stand as well as brand activism is improved when brands
show sincerity by going against their original purpose, which is to obtain profits.
For respondents of Generation Z to believe that a company’s brand activism is trustworthy
and genuine, they claim that brands should engage in and take a stand for issues that are
43
connected to their core business and appearance. To exemplify what that means in concrete
terms, one respondent mentioned that Nike’s campaign with Colin Kaepernick was
trustworthy since the brand usually sponsors sports and black athletes. It would have been
peculiar if the brand would not have stood up for black people's rights. On the contrary,
another respondent liked the Gillette commercial and the message of the commercial, but
questioned what razors have to do with MeToo and changing the expectations society has of
men. Furthermore, it can be noted that the authenticity of brand activism is more questioned
when brands expose and promote their products along with expressing a stand on a
sociopolitical issue. A company should not make a commercial where they take a stand,
together with promoting their products, since a commercial product itself usually has little to
do with it being the solution to a social political issue or injustice. Further, an additional
finding is that respondents seem to be less skeptical about brand activism actions when they
are emotionally affected.
In the special case of the Ukraine war, the overall opinion is that brands should engage in
brand activism in a way where they take actions that have an effect. In previous cases,
respondents argue that brands should get involved in issues that have to do with their core
business. In comparison with the case of the Ukraine war in conjunction with brand activism,
respondents believe that all companies in the world can, in one way or another, take a stand
on the issue, regardless of their core business. This issue is relevant to everyone worldwide.
Further, there are two sides to the Arla case. Some believe that brands should avoid being
associated with a warring country, regardless of the actual effect on the issue. Whereas some
of the respondents did not believe that the action had an actual effect and was therefore
unnecessary. If companies should withdraw their business from Russia, some respondents
agreed that they should withdraw when it results in an actual effect. However, there are
differences of opinion as to whether it matters when brands choose to withdraw from the
country, as some were quick to act while others chose to wait to see how the situation
proceeds. Some respondents also have the Russian people in mind and are more unsure of
what is the right course of action. In sum, in the special case of Ukraine, it is about partly
doing an action that makes a difference, but also that brands do not directly make any profit
from the decision or action. According to respondents of Generation Z, companies should
engage in brand activism that is altruistic and transparent.
44
7 Conclusion
In the final section we will answer the research questions: “How does Generation Z perceive
sociopolitical brand activism?” and “How should brands engage in brand activism
according to Generation Z?”. Further, a presentation and discussion are made on the
implication that the empirical findings and analysis have on brands, brand managers, and
the research field. Lastly, limitations of the study are provided which eventuate suggestions
for future research.
Firstly, we will provide a concluding answer to the study’s research question: “How does
Generation Z perceive sociopolitical brand activism?”. On one hand, brand activism is
perceived to be meaningful since it can spread a large awareness of important issues. Brands
have a potentially large impact on consumers and have to use their power to improve society.
On the other hand, the concept of brand activism is also perceived as a new deceitful practice
that exploits severe issues. It enables brands without genuine interest to showcase a facade to
make profits. Therefore, it can be concluded that brands that authentically engage in brand
activism are perceived more positively in comparison to those who are believed to take a
stand due to wrong reasons. Hence, the perceptions of brand activism are mainly positive
when brands approach it in authentic ways. However, it can be said that activism, regardless
of the underlying purposes, raises important societal discussions that otherwise may have
fallen into oblivion. To conclude, Generation Z believes that it is not brand activism in itself
that creates a positive perception of the brand. It is rather about what kind of measures are
being made that determine if the action adds value for the brand or if it hurts the brand equity.
In the specific case of the Ukraine war, Generation Z perceives brands that take action in a
better way than those that do not. It is especially appreciated when companies withdraw from
the country as it shows a willingness to lose profits to do the right thing. However, there is a
certain skepticism towards this situation also because it is questioned whether brands
withdraw due to their values or whether it is a matter of doing as everyone else in the fear of
being canceled.
Secondly, we will provide a concluding answer to the research question: “How should brands
engage in brand activism according to Generation Z?”. It seems to be important that brands
show genuine interest in the social cause they support and not just engage in the new and
45
trendy issues to be part of the discussion. Brands need to be consistent, transparent, and clear
about their activism actions to attain a better brand perception. Generation Z does not think
that brands should engage in issues that are highly politicized but rather broader issues
focusing on human rights and equality. It also seems that when a brand’s action evokes
feelings, the more likely it is that Generation Z believes the engagement to be trustworthy.
Based on the findings, Generation Z has the perception that companies have a social
responsibility and that they should take stands on issues that concern their business. However,
this should necessarily not be done through a commercial. Generation Z seems to be very
critical and skeptical about brands taking a stand via traditional marketing, especially when
there is no underlying substance or other measures taken for the cause. It is rather other
actions that are perceived as trustworthy and value adding, such as donating money or taking
a marketing decision for a social cause that does not generate profits for the company. This
also applies to the special case of the Ukraine war.
This research has shed light on the complex topic of brand activism. It is a forward-thinking
concept whose benefits can lead to a better society and spread awareness, while at the same
time there is suspicion against the companies' real intentions. Is it the profits or social change
that is most important? Brands need to overcome consumer skepticism to be perceived as
authentic, which can be done by addressing the apparent conflict that initially gives rise to
skepticism. Showing that brands prioritize actual change over profits can potentially mitigate
skepticism towards brand activism in general and brands in particular. In conclusion,
engaging in brand activism is not a straightforward practice for which there is a simple
solution. In fact, there are several components that together determine if brand activism is
perceived as successful or not.
7.1 Implications
Our findings have several theoretical and practical implications. This research has contributed
to a deeper understanding of how Generation Z perceive brands should engage in brand
activism. Previous research has mainly focused on the concept’s meaning as well as why it is
forward thinking and of importance in today’s society, but not as much in what ways and
from a generation perspective. In combination with covering how brands should act, brand
activism is explored in conjunction with the Ukraine war. At the time of writing, the war is
ongoing, and companies are making new marketing decisions daily due to the situation.
46
Therefore, there is very little, if any, brand activism research done on this specific and unique
situation. Investigating a new historical occurrence and applying the theory of brand activism
to it, provides new insights into the research in the field. An updated perspective in
connection with new situations results in research being developed and driven forward. In
addition to research, our results also have implications for brands because the study is about
what ways brands should act. Knowledge of this is more important now than ever in
connection with the war where brands are beginning to realize their responsibility while they
are unsure of how to proceed. The research gaps that previously have been presented can thus
be considered filled in the field of research.
Generation Z consumers set high standards on and have high expectations of companies
today, as stated by Chaney et al. (2017) as well as Sarkar and Kotler (2020). For example,
they expect companies to stand for something and favor the ones that have similar values as
themselves. Since it is predicted that Generation Z will continue to have a strong purchasing
power (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021), it may be self-evident that brands want to and will engage
in brand activism. At first glance, taking a stand seems to be a beneficial and desirable
solution as both current and future consumers place ever higher demands on companies and
their social responsibility. However, our findings propose that brands should act cautiously
about taking a stand and not enter the area without careful consideration. Consumers are
skeptical of brands that advertise their support for social causes since they often believe it to
be a marketing ploy to increase sales and profits. Instead of perceiving the concept as
something forward-looking and good, it is seen rather as a new way of deceiving consumers.
Brands need to consider how they can be perceived as authentic since this seems to be a
major obstacle when it comes to brand activism. It clearly shows that there is a strong
relationship between brand activism and authenticity, which Mirzaei et al. (2022) also
conclude. We raise and develop this issue in connection with the Ukraine war where the
results show that authenticity is also an important factor in this case.
The implications for brands and brand managers that are targeting the segment of Generation
Z are multiple. Engaging in brand activism requires an evident consistency between cause,
brand and actions. It is important to make sure that consumers understand the relationship
between a brand’s core business and its standpoint, especially when the relationship is not
obvious. Furthermore, once a brand has taken a stand, it is crucial for the brand authenticity
that the continued activities are in line with them. It is not sufficient to take a stand in
47
commercials, but it must also be expressed in future corporate actions. Brand managers also
need to remember that Generation Z does not appreciate when the position is taken in
connection with trendy and talked about problems. Since we live in a society where new
debates and problems arise daily, it is important to be restrained in what positions brands take
and to consider the consequences of it.
7.2 Limitations & Future Research
There are some limitations to this research. First of all, it only contains an investigation of the
perceptions of representatives of Generation Z. Hence, to achieve a broader understanding of
the subject other generations should be studied and even compared. Future research should
explore if the findings in this research are specifically typical for Generation Z, or if it is a
reasoning that is applicable to other generations living in 2022. Further, on the subject, it
should be explored if brands are segmenting specific target groups and generations by
engaging in brand activism. On that occasion, future research should investigate if it would
be more successful for more niche brands to engage in brand activism than it would be for
mass-market brands.
Secondly, the study had a qualitative approach to explore a deeper understanding of
consumers' perceptions of brands taking a stand on sociopolitical issues. However, this
research did not allow for making any generalizations about the opinions on the topic. The
conclusion we make can only be drawn from the fourteen people that were included in our
interview study. Neither did it present any result on what effect brand activism has on
consumers. Therefore, it would be interesting to conduct quantitative research and collect
data through surveys. It would also be interesting to make observations of consumers to
examine their buying behavior in conjunction with brand activism and if it has any effect.
Thirdly, the study had a consumer perspective on the issue of brand activism. Just as
consumers of Generation Z are powerful actors on the market in their role of being
consumers, they are likewise powerful actors when acting on behalf of other roles. For
instance, in their role of being employees. In the postmodern society, it is vital that companies
are attractive to current and future employees to retain talent. Therefore, it would be
interesting to investigate the issue of brand activism from an employer branding perspective.
48
Reference List
Adams, W. (2015). Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry
& J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (4th ed.),
492–505. Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
Arla. (n.d.). Arla® Kefir. https://www.arla.se/produkter/arla-brand/kefir/ [2022-04-29]
Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, J. C. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.
https://doi.org/10.1086/426626
Baines, P., Fill, C., & Rosengren, S. (2017). Marketing (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
BBC News. (2017, April 6). Kendall Jenner Pepsi advert: Why did it wind people up?
[Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY9d5vDjY9A
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate
social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1),
46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Berisha, E. (2022, March 24). Arlas kefir-beslut hånas: ”Oerhört tramsigt”. SVT Nyheter.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/arlas-kefir-beslut-hanas [2022-04-29]
Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting Authenticity through
Advertising: Consumer Judgments of Advertisers' Claims. Journal of Advertising,
37(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370101
Biron, B. (2022, March 10). Here are the major companies that have not pulled out of Russia
following its invasion of Ukraine. Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ukraine-invastion-war-sanctions-corporate-res
ponse-companies-not-leaving-2022-3?r=US&IR=T [2022-04-05]
49
Brønn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related
marketing: an overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207–222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2001.11104887
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). S ceptic. In Cambridge Dictionary.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sceptic [2022-05-13]
Chaney, D., Touzani, M., & Slimane, K. B. (2017). Marketing to the (new) generations:
summary and perspectives. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(3), 179–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2017.1291173
CNBC. (2018, September 19). How Nike Turns Controversy Into Dollars [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvkf88eSTrI
Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2012). On the road to prosumption: marketing discourse and the
development of consumer competencies. Consumption Markets & Culture, 15(2),
149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2012.654956
Deloitte. (2018). The CMO survey: fall 2018 survey, available at:
www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/chief-marketing-officer/articles/the-cmo-survey-fall-
2018-report.html [2022-05-08]
Djafarova, E., & Bowes, T. (2021). ‘Instagram made Me buy it’: Generation Z impulse
purchases in fashion industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102345
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
50
Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018, November 12). ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications
for companies. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-ge
n-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies [2022-04-04]
Gillette. (2019, January 14). We Believe: The Best Men Can Be. [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
Gillette. (n.d.). Our Commitment | The Best Men Can Be.
https://gillette.com/en-us/our-committment [2022-04-29]
Holt, D. B. (2004). How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, Y. J., & Lee, W. N. (2009). Overcoming Consumer Skepticism in Cause-Related
Marketing: The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Donation Size Claim
Objectivity. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 465–483.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496490903270232
Klostermann, J., Hydock, C., & Decker, R. (2021). The effect of corporate political advocacy
on brand perception: an event study analysis. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1108/JPBM-03-2021-3404
Lin, T. C. W. (2018). INCORPORATING SOCIAL ACTIVISM. Boston University law
review, 98(6), 1535–1605.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51
Manfredi-Sánchez, J.-L. (2019). Brand activism. Communication & Society, 32(4), 343–359.
https://doi.org/10.15581/003.32.4.343-359
Mirzaei, A., Wilkie, D. C., & Siuki, H. (2022). Woke brand activism authenticity or the lack
of it. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.044
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2014). Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
Mukherjee, S., & Althuizen, N. (2020). Brand activism: Does courting controversy help or
hurt a brand? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(4), 772–788.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.02.008
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). AD SKEPTICISM: The
Consequences of Disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199
Patel, R., & Davidson, B. (2011). Forskningsmetodikens grunder: att planera, genomföra och
rapportera en undersökning (4th ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Popp, B. & Woratschek, H. (2017). Consumer–brand identification revisited: An integrative
framework of brand identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and their
role for brand loyalty and word of mouth. Journal of Brand Management, 24(3),
250–270. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0033-9
Reuters. (2022, March 9). Factbox: European and U.S. companies mobilise to help
Ukrainians Fleeing the war.
https://www.reuters.com/business/european-us-companies-mobilise-help-ukrainians-fl
eeing-war-2022-03-01/ [2022-04-24]
Sarkar, C., & Kotler, P. (2020). Brand Activism: From Purpose to Action. Texas, USA: Idea
Bite Press.
52
Schmidt, H. J., Ind, N., Guzmán, F., & Kennedy, E. (2022). Sociopolitical activist brands.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(1), 40–55.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2020-2805
Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How? California
Management Review, 45(4), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166188
Solomon, M. (2019). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being (13th ed.). London:
Pearson Education Limited.
Sozzi, B., & Semenova, A. (2022, March 8). Russia-Ukraine war: Companies that have taken
action against Russia. Yahoo Finance.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-companies-taking-action-on-the-russia-ukraine-w
ar-so-far-215851239.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ
2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF8vnpoMyYmdvLaFpnsPw20Z6vD3Jrc9
2Ovg6_gBW3y1O5uNKdZemXCcF4Id_yudw2UhE-0DDt_KmtzK1xhDA2SB1jv_S
2MyL0hos78HCIhgUhAfmr6jyUwcWgg9307b6V7_EFxGYbSVozghhRAl9r4IoVzH
TQ6blof3QDlF7aSL [2022-03-14]
Södergren, J. (2022). “Woke” Authenticity in Brand Culture: A Patchwork Ethnography. PhD
thesis, Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Todd, D. (2012). You Are What You Buy: Postmodern Consumerism and the Construction of
Self. Hohonu, 10, 48–50.
Via TT. (2021, September 27). Arla lanserar uppdaterad Kefir med nytt recept och två nya
smaker.
https://via.tt.se/pressmeddelande/arla-lanserar-uppdaterad-kefir-med-nytt-recept-och-t
va-nya-smaker?publisherId=3235978&releaseId=3306980 [2022-04-29]
53
Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A., & Kemper, J. (2020). Brands Taking a Stand: Authentic
Brand Activism or Woke Washing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4),
444-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620947359
Yadav, Y. (2017, April 6). Full Pepsi Commercial Starring Kendal Jenner. [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwvAgDCOdU4
54
Appendix
Appendix 1 – Interview guide
Opening question:
● You are welcome to start describing yourself.
Du får gärna börja med att presentera dig själv.
● What factors are important to you when choosing which brand you will consume?
Vilka faktorer är viktiga för dig när du väljer vilket varumärke du ska konsumera?
Brands and their responsibilities
● What are your favorite brands and why?
Vilka är dina favoritmärken och varför?
● What do you believe companies and brands are and should be doing in addition to
selling their products and services?
Vad tycker du att företag/varumärken ska göra utöver att sälja deras produkter och
tjänster?
Marketing activity cases
Before showing the brand activity case:
● What do you think about this brand?
Vad tycker du om det här varumärket?
After showing the brand activity case:
● What was your first impression of the advertisement/activity?
Vad var ditt första intryck av reklamen/aktiviteten?
● What feelings emerged?
Vilka känslor uppkom?
● What is your perception of the brand after you have seen the advertisement/activity?
Vad är din uppfattning om varumärket efter du sett aktiviteten?
● Do you think that the commercial/market activity is believable?
Tyckte du att reklamen/marknadsaktiviteten kändes trovärdig?
55
According to the brand itself, the purpose of the marketing activity was to…
Varumärkets syfte med marknadsaktiviteten var enligt varumärket själva att…
● Gillette:
…promote a positive and inclusive image of men that will challenge the stereotypes
and expectations that exist on men today. Gillette thus wants to break today's image of
masculinity and the "boys will be boys" mentality.
Do you believe that they succeeded with this?
…främja en positiv och inkluderande bild av män som ska utmana de stereotyper och
förväntningar som finns på män idag. Gillette vill alltså bryta dagens bild av
maskulinitet och “boys will be boys”-mentaliteten.
Tycker du att den gjorde det?
● Pepsi:
“This is a global ad that reflects people from different walks of life coming together
in a spirit of harmony, and we think that's an important message to convey".
Do you believe that they succeeded with this?
“Detta är en global kampanj som reflekterar hur människor från olika livsområden
samlas i andan av harmoni, och vi tycker att det är ett viktigt budskap att förmedla”.
Tycker du att den gjorde det?
● Arla:
“As the situation is right now, we do not want to be associated with Russia and the
Russian regime. We believe that the illustration makes you think about it and that
does not feel good” said the communication manager of Arla Caroline Starck to SVT
Kulturnyheterna.
What do you think about that?
“Som läget är just nu vill vi inte förknippas med Ryssland och den ryska regimen. Vi
tycker att just den illustrationen för tankarna ditåt och det känns inte bra” sa Arlas
kommunikationschef Caroline Starck till SVT Kulturnyheterna.
Vad tycker du om det?
56
Criticism
● Gillette:
The advertisement was both praised and criticized. Many believed that it raised false
assumptions and gross generalization about men. It was also speculated whether the
company really cared about the social issue or not.
What do you think about the public response?
Reklamen blev både hyllad och kritiserad. Många menade att den lyfte falska
antaganden och grov generalisering om män. Det spekulerades också om företag
egentligen brydde sig om problemet eller inte.
Vad tycker du om responsen?
● Pepsi:
The ad was criticized on social media and accused of capitalizing on the Black Lives
Matter movement. And that the brand does not have a history of promoting social
justice issues.
What do you think about the public response?
Reklamen blev kritiserad på sociala medier och anklagad för att kapitalisera på Black
Lives Matter rörelsen. Och att varumärket inte har en historia av att tidigare promota
frågor om social rättvisa.
Vad tycker du om responsen?
● Arla:
The act received criticism for not distinguishing between what Putin, his regime and
Kreml does and the Russian people. “Deleting everything that is Russian, is the wrong
way to go and do not strike against Putin”.
Handlingen fick kritik för att inte kunna skilja på vad Putin, hans regim och Kreml
gör och det ryska folket. “Att radera allt ryskt, är fel väg att gå och att detta inte slår
mot Putin”.
Ukraine War
● In the context of that Russia invaded Ukraine many companies have chosen to take,
and not take, certain measures. For example, some companies have chosen to stop
selling their products or stop production in Russia. Apple, Nike and Netflix pulled out
57
of Russia at a relatively early stage. McDonalds and Coca-Cola pulled out after a
while and Hilton and Modelez core business remains in the country.
How do you believe that one should act?
I kontexten av att Ryssland invaderade Ukraina så har många företag valt att göra
och inte göra vissa åtgärder. Till exempel så så har vissa företag valt att sluta sälja
sina produkter samt stanna upp produktionen i Ryssland. Apple, Nike och Netflix drog
sig ur Ryssland relativt tidigt i konfliktens skede. McDonalds och Coca-Cola drog sig
ur efter ett tag och Hiltons och Mondelez kärnverksamhet finns kvar.
Hur borde man agera tycker du?
● After seeing these examples, do you think that companies should take a stand in
socio-political issues?
Efter att fått se dessa exempel, tycker du att företag borde ta ställning i sociopolitiska
frågor?
Brand activism
● Do you believe that there's situations where companies should take a stand vs
situations where companies should not take a stand?
Finns det fall när du tycker att företag ska ta ställning vs fall när företag inte ska ta
ställning?
● Have you experienced a situation in the past where you boycotted or thought about
boycotting a brand because of them engaging in socio political issues?
Har du upplevt en situation då du bojkottat ett varumärke eller funderat på att
bojkotta ett varumärke på grund av att de tar ställning i socio politiska frågor?
● Have you bought from a brand because of their brand activism?
Har du handlat av ett varumärke på grund av deras varumärkes aktivism/brand
activism?
58