Beyond branding: Making corporate activism count

When Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, resigned following disagreements with the parent company Unilever over human rights violations in Gaza, the debate over how far corporates should go in aligning profits with principles came sharply back into focus. While Greenfield chose to exit, his partner Ben Cohen decided to remain and “fight from within.” The ice cream company wanted to stop sales in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but Unilever sidestepped that decision by selling distribution rights to a local Israeli licensee — effectively bypassing the brand’s activist stance.

Those who subscribe to Milton Friedman’s famous proposition — that a corporation’s sole responsibility is to maximise returns for its shareholders — may find Unilever’s decision perfectly defensible. Yet long before current debates on corporate purpose, economist Howard Bowen, widely regarded as the father of modern corporate social responsibility (CSR), argued in the 1950s that businesses have obligations that extend beyond profit-making. Because corporations operate with the “public consent” of society, Bowen insisted, they must pursue policies consistent with broader social values and societal well-being.

In recent decades, as climate concerns intensified and public expectations evolved, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics and sustainability indices have become integral to investment decision-making and corporate reporting. Nevertheless, CSR has never achieved full universality in a mandatory or standardised sense. As of 2019, roughly 90% of S&P 500 companies and over 90% of the world’s 250 largest firms published some form of CSR or sustainability report, mostly within voluntary frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the UN Global Compact, and ISO 26000 guidelines.

An important milestone came with the establishment of B Lab in 2006, which launched the global B Corp movement aimed at embedding social and environmental accountability into the corporate DNA. So far, more than 9,500 companies across 102 countries and 161 industries have been certified as B Corps. Ben & Jerry’s was an early adopter of the ethos and received its B Corp certification in 2012. Some countries — including India, Mauritius, and Indonesia — have gone further by legally mandating CSR spending, while others, such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France and Australia, require CSR reporting but do not legally oblige companies to spend on specific activities.

Over time, companies have also increasingly ventured into corporate activism — or corporate social advocacy (CSA) — taking public stances on divisive socio-political issues. This shift reflects rising expectations among consumers, employees and investors who now look to corporations not merely as economic actors but as moral and civic players. Unlike traditional CSR, which often focuses on compliance and reputation management, corporate activism is risk-laden and inherently political. But for many companies, it has become a way to shape brand identity and cultivate deeper customer loyalty. Social media’s powerful amplification effects have further dismantled the older, one-way corporate communication model, forcing businesses into more responsive, transparent and participatory forms of engagement.

The landscape of corporate activism varies significantly across regions, shaped by cultural norms, regulatory environments and market dynamics. The US accounts for nearly half of all global corporate activism campaigns, driven by a large and highly polarised consumer base and a history of social movements that extend into the corporate sphere. American companies have taken public positions on LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice and issues such as gun control, with several retailers restricting sales of certain weapons and ammunition. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, several firms pledged to cover travel expenses for employees seeking abortion services out of state.

However, corporate behaviour in the US has not been linear. During Trump’s second presidency, many companies began softening or even retreating from earlier public commitments, shifting instead to quieter internal efforts. Environmental sustainability and social justice pledges were often deprioritised as polarisation deepened. A recent Pew survey reflects this divide: while 52% of US adults believe it is important for companies to take public stances on social and political issues, 48% believe the opposite. Party affiliation shapes this divide dramatically — 71% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents say it is important, compared with only 31% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Even among Democrats, recent media analyses suggest a perceptible decline in the willingness to foreground climate issues in political and public discussions.

Despite the US withdrawal from COP30 — which Brazil has designated the “Forest COP” to highlight forest conservation — some American corporations continue to demonstrate commitments to climate action. Notably, Google’s recent purchase of 200,000 tons of CO₂ removal credits generated through restoration efforts in the Amazon stands out as a significant example of corporate climate leadership.

Europe, meanwhile, remains at the forefront of embedding ESG principles into formal regulation. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the EU Taxonomy, and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) together constitute some of the world’s most robust sustainability frameworks, creating what many consider a de facto global standard. Yet activism campaigns in Europe have dipped somewhat — falling to 21% of the global total in 2023 and running 22% below the four-year average by October 2025. Still, the long-term trajectory remains upward thanks to growing market entry, more activist-friendly regulations and intensifying ESG scrutiny.

The 2025 USC Global Communication Report, The Future of Corporate Activism, reveals that most public relations professionals now spend far more time navigating societal issues than they did five years ago —and expect this trend only to intensify. For many corporates, engaging with controversial issues has become not just a matter of “doing good” but a strategic avenue for shaping public opinion and staying aligned with stakeholder expectations.

What seems clear is that corporate activism has moved far beyond the Friedman-era conception of shareholder primacy. There is no returning to a worldview in which profits alone define corporate success. But for activism to hold meaning — and legitimacy — companies must move past superficial gestures and “performative activism.” Instead, activism must become a genuine organisational requirement, embedded in core values, operational practices and long-term strategy.

This means engaging stakeholders in transparent dialogue, measuring impact rigorously, and committing to authentic, sustained action that advances the common good. The challenge is significant, but so is the opportunity: corporates today possess unparalleled influence, and with that influence comes a responsibility that can no longer be dismissed.

Archana Datta, a retired civil servant, was OSD to the Governor of Karnataka; Press Secretary to the President; DG, AIR; and DG, Doordarshan