Now more than ever before, companies are expected to establish a clear stance on important social and political issues. In fact, a 2018 survey from DoSomething found that 76 percent of respondents said they have purchased, or would consider purchasing, from a company to show support for the issues they back. The survey also found that 67 percent of respondents had stopped purchasing, or would consider doing so, if a company stood for something that didn’t align with their values. As a result, defining and establishing a stance on key issues has become a critical element to many business strategies.

Our team recently wrote about how brands can rebrand with purpose and the benefits of doing so in this blog post. But once brands establish their stance on issues, how can they ensure they effectively support them?

I recently came across an article in Harvard Business Review about how brands can follow through on the values they’re promoting to consumers. The author, Latia Curry, artfully outlines two key elements necessary to evaluate a brand’s effectiveness in navigating the complexities of social advocacy. The first element is understanding a brand’s “issue fluency,” which analyzes how authentically a brand engages with the public on an issue, and the second is the “depth of engagement”, which evaluates how much a brand is investing in a particular issue.

As you may imagine, the most well-received brands are ones that authentically communicate and invest in addressing issues that are important to their stakeholders.

A brand that is often used as a successful example of social advocacy is Ben and Jerry’s. The business “lives their values,” according to Curry. This is largely because the company actively shares its stance on social and political issues, including social injustices, racial discrimination and climate change. But it doesn’t only speak to its perspective, it also acts on it, investing in initiatives that support changes related to the issues it supports.

As communications professionals, we are often providing recommendations on how brands should respond to large social issues. PR professionals can craft effective statements that enable “issue-fluency” that communicates a brand’s perspective, but Curry’s approach raises an important question to ask: Is the brand also supporting the issue through its actions? Or in Curry’s terms, what is the depth of the brand’s engagement?  

The answer to this question will influence not only the response, but the tone as well.

Living its values. Brands that dedicate time and resources to important social issues, both internally and externally, are living their values. It’s important to note that these companies aren’t just responding to an event, they are familiar with an issue and are committed to addressing it, regardless of the climate.

As such, these brands are often very issue-fluent and construct responses to major social events that demonstrate a clear understanding of the complexities and nuances of a specific issue because they have been working to address it for some time.

Owning its position. It’s important to understand that if a brand hasn’t been investing the time or resources in addressing a specific issue, it does not mean it cannot comment on it. But, if they do so, it’s important they own their current position in relation to the issue. This might mean acknowledging the fact that they have not dedicated time and resources. After that, they might want to commit to taking the necessary steps to enhance their depth of engagement. And finally, if brands are not experts on a topic but comment on it as if they are, it will not be well-received by the public.

Similar to a crisis scenario, brands should consider having a plan in place on how to respond to a range of issues so they can do so in a timely and effective manner. Social advocacy is becoming a critical element of business strategy and PR professionals play a large role in sharing messages on these topics.