The ARF on ESG

Unsplash / Anthony Intraversato

The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) has issued a new report about the effectiveness of cause marketing – when brands take a public stand on ESG or DEI issues.  

The conclusion: It’s complicated.

Of course, most consumers say they prefer to support brands that make a difference in the world and they even will pay more to do so. However, there is little or no evidence that these self-reported beliefs and preferences translate into actual consumer behavior. For a small number of people, they do. But generally, they don’t.

One reason is that most of us don’t care enough to investigate whether a brand is making a difference in the world or not.  A GfK study from earlier this year claims that fewer than half of American consumers could name a brand that “is making a difference when it comes to the environment or diversity.” This despite the apparent ubiquity of such messaging.

In a Quirk’s article last year, OZ’s James Forr argued that often a brand’s sustainability commitment works best when it is under the hood – and quietly built into product design, packaging, or functionality – as opposed to taking the form of self-serving marketing proclamations. 

The ARF report offers several other hypotheses. One is that overt ESG and DEI messaging works best with more affluent consumers – and therefore, BMW or Rolex might be able to say a little more than Bud Light can.

They also suggest that focusing on values (kindness, helping others, etc.) might be more effective than messaging that addresses specific causes. And there are several proposed avenues for future research – such as which emotional levers such messaging should pull and the relative effectiveness of boycotts and buy-cots.