I skimmed and may have missed things, but I was surprised to see that “the majority of commitments in other areas have been won by direct collaboration with companies and without the need for a public campaign”.
Just to clarify, was your impression that companies were happy to collaborate and compromise with advocates because of their desire to branded as ethical and sustainable? That is, they might see a credible threat that if they don’t compromise, a public campaign might be launched. And they want to avoid this because the campaign could stain the company’s reputation no matter whether it ends up taking up the corporate commitment in the end, after public pressure?
For fashion brands specifically, the “sustainability” or “ethical” label are a strong PR point for many (and no concern at all for others). This has been leveraged into collaborative changes with such brands in the past, especially by PETA, who used to run more “bad cop” campaigns but now lean more into collaborating. One reason for this can be the growing concern of the public, and specific subgroups of consumers who care or want to show they care about sustainability or animal welfare. Probably also the history of PETA’s strong campaigns can lead companies to look for a collaborative approach and compromise, as you said under the threat of a public campaign. The high success of these campaigns also most likely lies in very strategic selection of the brands—PETA and other campaigners usually go for the “low hanging fruit” and target brands that have an image of caring about such issues and are likely to want to maintain it.
I just wanted to add to Zuzana’s response that our basis for the statement in question is also based on what we have learned out about cage-free corporate campaigns. From our understanding, the threat of a “bad cop” campaign is often enough for companies to sign commitments. So yes Jojo, your interpretation is correct I would say.
Great work!
I skimmed and may have missed things, but I was surprised to see that “the majority of commitments in other areas have been won by direct collaboration with companies and without the need for a public campaign”.
Just to clarify, was your impression that companies were happy to collaborate and compromise with advocates because of their desire to branded as ethical and sustainable? That is, they might see a credible threat that if they don’t compromise, a public campaign might be launched. And they want to avoid this because the campaign could stain the company’s reputation no matter whether it ends up taking up the corporate commitment in the end, after public pressure?
Thank you!
For fashion brands specifically, the “sustainability” or “ethical” label are a strong PR point for many (and no concern at all for others). This has been leveraged into collaborative changes with such brands in the past, especially by PETA, who used to run more “bad cop” campaigns but now lean more into collaborating. One reason for this can be the growing concern of the public, and specific subgroups of consumers who care or want to show they care about sustainability or animal welfare. Probably also the history of PETA’s strong campaigns can lead companies to look for a collaborative approach and compromise, as you said under the threat of a public campaign. The high success of these campaigns also most likely lies in very strategic selection of the brands—PETA and other campaigners usually go for the “low hanging fruit” and target brands that have an image of caring about such issues and are likely to want to maintain it.
Thanks both!
I just wanted to add to Zuzana’s response that our basis for the statement in question is also based on what we have learned out about cage-free corporate campaigns. From our understanding, the threat of a “bad cop” campaign is often enough for companies to sign commitments. So yes Jojo, your interpretation is correct I would say.
Thank you both for your responses! Makes sense