wolterke/Depositphotos.com
November 3, 2025
How Can Brands Avoid ‘Woke’ Accusations in Supporting Social Causes?
A study from professors at NYU Stern Center concluded that brands should reframe inclusivity messages around “access,” rather than identity, in supporting social issues to avoid backlash from the “go woke, go broke” critics of corporate social responsibility.
Their research, according to a column in Harvard Business Review, involved 2,100 U.S. adults testing 30-plus messages per seven unnamed “iconic brands” exploring ethical business, inclusivity, and societal well-being issues. The goal was to learn how brands can use social messages to engage, not alienate, consumers.
A core finding was that social messaging focusing on access — or using language about serving those that have been underserved, excluded, or otherwise marginalized — most favorably drives brand appeal. The researchers wrote, “Social claims relating to other types of identity were less universally supported, unless directed to a consumer who shares that identity (e.g. products for women that lean into communications about supporting women).”
Other advice included identifying and focusing on social issues “relevant to your business offerings, stakeholders, and sphere of influence.” Targeted messaging was also found to be appropriate for some brands. The researchers noted, “Demographic-specific messaging is effective when it reflects a brand’s authentic voice, a clear disparity/access problem, and demonstrated engagement in the community.”
The findings come as brands from Target to Bud Light, Disney, Chick-fil-A, Cracker Barrel, and many more have retreated from DEI programs and are quietly removing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) updates from communications amid regulatory changes and boycott threats.
‘Woke’ Messaging Supported in Some Instances, But Not in all Cases
The NYU Stern Center study noted that research continues to demonstrate that “customers want to see their values reflected in their purchases,” citing Edelman’s 2025 Brand Trust report that found 64% of Americans “buy, choose, or avoid brands based on my beliefs about what’s going on in society.” The same study found that if a brand does not mention what it is doing to address societal issues, 53% “assume the brand is doing nothing, or hiding something.”
The NYU Stern study likewise favorably found adding the right social messages to the product or service core attribute message increased the average appeal from 42% (core attribute) to 62% (first social claim) to 70% (additional two social claims).
A survey earlier this year from global insights firm Globescan revealed that more than half (53%) of Americans want companies to support DEI initiatives, while only 14% want them to oppose it. Nearly two-thirds (65%) said corporations should support government action on protecting fresh water, and more than half (52%) said government action on climate change should be supported. Only 10% and 11%, respectively, said that companies should oppose these issues.
Protecting democracy (48%), rights of the LGBTQ+ community (38%), and a woman’s right to choose (34%) are also issues where many consumers believe companies should speak out in support of. However, for the latter two, many believe companies should stay neutral or quiet, at 32% and 39% respectively.
“There is a strong signal-to-noise problem in today’s political environment,” said Globescan in its report. “The American public is instead highly supportive of companies speaking out on a number of sustainability and social issues. Companies with the savvy and conviction to meet consumer expectations can be more vocal around these issues and potentially improve brand trust.”
Discussion Questions
Has it become harder for retailers to support causes without upsetting consumers?
What advice would you have for brands as to how to balance engaging in social activism while avoiding political backlash?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Gary Sankary
Retail Industry Strategy, Esri
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Nolan Wheeler
Founder and CEO, SYNQ
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Has Maverik Made a Mistake on its Kum & Go Rebrand?
Maverik has completed its rebranding of Kum & Go, folding the stores into its own banner…Is Guilt Messaging the Path To Influencing Consumer Behavior?
A university study has found that telling consumers their returned items will be “kept out of…How Great of an Advantage Do Low-Price Leaders Like Walmart and Aldi Have?
Low-price leaders like Aldi and Walmart, among others, are vying for an increasingly savvy consumer. How…
As almost everything is mired in politics these days, it has become far harder for brands to support causes without upsetting some group or another. So, in everything they do, brands need to keep their customers and positioning foremost in mind. This provides a guide as to which actions are prudent and which are not – including those related to political and social matters. That said, most brands should also avoid overtly party-political and religious arenas, as these are hot potatoes that will usually cause at least some annoyance and alienation.
The other part of the Target story is missing from this piece. Target scaled back DEI in January, and their customers are punishing them for it. Store traffic dropped for 10 straight weeks, store sales and revenue declined significantly, and the stock dropped to its lowest level in years. Nine months later, they have not recovered. The question is, which consumers will you upset? It seems both sides are looking for reasons to be angry. Not mentioned here is Costco, who has decided that their values dictate that they will support the causes they’ve always supported and let the chips fall where they may. For Costco, that’s worked.
Other companies, on the other side of the political spectrum, have been unwavering in their support for conservative causes, but they have had little impact. The issue is with those organizations that target one side, then try to walk it back. That’s what has created the most damage to reputation and the strongest consumer backlash.
Obviously, you do not want to be a polarizing force in your markets. Then again, Penzy’s Spice has turned political activism into their brand identity and arguably, their business is better for it.
The lesson for retailers is to stick to their values, be genuine and on-brand and do not chase the latest politics.
Yes, it has become more challenging for retailers to support social causes without alienating segments of their customer base — but that shouldn’t deter brands from standing for what matters. In a polarized environment, the key is authenticity. When a company’s actions clearly align with its purpose, values, and stakeholders, customers and employees recognize that integrity, even if not everyone agrees.
Supporting causes that reflect your customers’ and employees’ lived experiences will always carry some risk, but brands that remain consistent and transparent tend to build deeper loyalty over time. The most effective approach is to focus on initiatives that connect naturally to your business and to frame them around shared goals such as access, inclusion, and opportunity rather than ideology.
Ultimately, social activism done well is not about chasing headlines — it’s about reinforcing trust. Retailers that stay true to their purpose, communicate clearly, and back their words with action will find that authenticity outweighs short-term backlash, strengthening both brand equity and stakeholder confidence in the long run.
Agree 100%. Seems odd that the idea of brand integrity, so vehemently applied to merchandising and store experiences, somehow gets forgotten when it comes to community and social engagement.
“Woke” Heaven forfend.
Let’s all use common sense. Target is being boycotted because of a hamhanded attempt to mollify a racist political leader. Retailers and brands needs to say that they appeal to everyone…and they’ll win.
Research confirms that a significant portion of consumers (64% of Americans) buy, choose, or avoid brands based on their beliefs, and more than half assume a brand is doing nothing if it doesn’t speak out. For many retailers, shifting from identity-based language to universally accepted concepts, such as fairness and access, is wise. Public stances should align with the company’s core values (which remain consistent regardless of new CEOs or annual reports) and focus on social issues relevant to their business. A focus on authenticity, relevance, and issue-framing is necessary to avoid divisive matters; however, for core value issues, be prepared to lose some non-core customers. Ultimately, if you lose the trust built with your core consumers, you may never regain it, given the current operating climate.
An argument can be made that corporations should never be supporting “causes”, but rather give the money back to their shareholders to do as they wish with it (including, obviously, donating to charities if they so desire). The logic of that notwithstanding, various forms of activism are often used, essentially, for marketing purposes – ethically questionable as that may be – and some types of non-cash involvement would be basically impossible to replicate at the individual level; with that in mind, activities should be consistent with the company’s messaging, and not likely to alienate more that a trival part of the customer base…which with a large company that sells to practically everyone, is very limiting indeed!
So much for overt activism; but the term can be broadly interpreted to include such things as a company’s own policies…a company can’t avoid having those, of course, so each will ultimately have to decide what kind of company they want to be.
Target as a corporate citizen always prided itself on donating 5% of its profits to charity, and it prompted many other Twin Cities-headquartered firms to do the same. Now it could take a page from the Costco playbook — maintain your values, instead of apologizing for them. Retailers and other companies interested in the long-term sustainability of their brands should avoid playing “weatherman” and adapting to the wind direction coming from the left or the right.
Target is a brand adrift. Why is their CEO still there after his apparent decision to do a 180 what Target stood for? And why on earth promote him to stay over the new CEO in February?
People seem quicker to respond to what brands support these days. The best thing a brand can do is stay true to its values and support causes that align with its target audience. You can’t please everyone, so it’s better to focus on being consistent and authentic.
Navigating your company brand safely through the waters of supporting community and social causes without backlash is tricky, but can be done by embracing the reality your customer base represents a wide political spectrum, and no one view or position should dominate. If you don’t want to risk angering a percentage of your customers or hurt sales, then don’t get into activism, and instead consider partnering with organizations and causes who fulfill the good without sparking division.
Some mostly not divisive options: Food banks, childrens hospitals, schools, clean water, first responders, community clean ups, pet shelters, animal health, local zoo’s, the library, parks, medical/health fundraising, elderly care.
Businesses have the right to publicize their policies. They can do so discreetly and in a non-alienating language.
A few businesses will not operate on Saturdays and more will not operate on Sundays. They are all known (not just perceived) for being socially conservative. Should they be criticized for these policies? No!
Businesses can cling to social values simply stating concepts and without getting into specifics.
This article provides a critical blueprint for brands, but it’s important to remember that many companies already support social causes through genuine action, whether via NGO partnerships, annual giving, or school initiatives. My strong belief is that when a brand gives support, they must highlight their actions—not to gain brand affiliation, but to encourage transparency and inspire others to join the mission. However, we cannot ignore the deep skepticism earned by “premium” brands who heavily promote their social efforts while simultaneously facing accusations of child labor or ethical design failures in their supply chain. This hypocrisy is precisely why the public demands authenticity. The focus should always be on substance over signaling, using the language of “access” to share their genuine contribution and invite collective involvement.
There will be no avoiding ‘woke’ accusations. They will come no matter how careful a brand or retailer tries to be. So for the brand or retailer it has to be first and foremost about Brand Promise. If the brand promise is going to embrace some social issue, then just go for it. Let the accusations fly. It’s simply a brand trying to sell a particular product to a focused segment of the market. Can a social issue be over played? Absolutely. Ignoring politics, that’s a lack of authenticity and should be called out.
Accusations of ‘woke’ aren’t even thinly disguised versions of bullying. They are flat out bullying, and bullies need to be pushed back on. Don’t like a product or brand? Boycott it. Don’t buy it. But this name calling and bullying is nuts.
I happen to think Target was genuine and authentic in their initiatives. I don’t think it was a facade. But they buckled as if they had something to apologize for. And paid dearly. HUGE lesson there. Stay authentic and genuine. #$%&* the bullies.