There’s much I agree with, especially the observation that brand purpose defaults to earnest, preachy, self-righteous and/or cloying sentimental creative work. For me Nick’s broader criticism’s of purpose could be wrapped up in one word, ‘managerialism’, a set of soft power beliefs attitudes & values to use the organization to influence society as opposed to responding to people’s needs & desires, and it also looks to me like a lot of the heat is a corporate management power struggle between progressive and conservative perspectives.
Nick sides with shareholder primacy, echoing Friedman, but without discussing ‘stakeholder governance’ or whether corporations do have broader social aims, beyond being nicer and paying their taxes, which of course they are actually doing even when exploiting all the legal loopholes. Having broader social aims in communities used not to be remotely controversial before the Reagan/Thatcher administrations, which also ushered in the era of asset stripping and off shoring. The ‘purpose clause’ can be traced all the way back to early corporate law, purpose certainly predates Occupy, although modern iterations B-corps and benefit corporations establishment falls either side of the ‘08 financial crisis. There’s a tributary of purpose that sprang from the early ecological movement. Nick is critical of these voluntary organizations because they can be gamed and can lead to noble cause corruption, true, but any system can and will be gamed by a minority, therefore the issue becomes one of oversight and governance but not necessarily a return to the drawing board.
I do think there is a much harder genuine purpose within the system of money, markets and providing goods and services that is being ignored, where entrepreneurs are attempting to figure out, operationalize and popularize businesses that are circular in consumption, regenerative in production, cooperative in ownership, and so on, but this is an uphill struggle in a financial system where MBA types preach ‘alpha returns’ and citizens passively underwrite finance capital.
Hi Rupert – only belatedly saw this comment. Always respect the way you think seriously about this stuff. I can see how it comes across that I'm 'siding with shareholder primacy' and it's certainly true that I'm sceptical of the whole concept of a 'stakeholder' – I'm not sure the word really means anything beyond PR.
I think where I land in the book is a kind of humanist position, where the counterbalance to market excesses/externalities doesn't lie in some perpetually elusive idea of reinventing corporations, but instead lies in reasserting the role of humans in the process. And I think it's interesting that Alison Taylor arrives at a similar position from a different angle in her book 'Higher Ground' – where she advocates 'human rights' as a better lens through which to approach corporate ethics. I think that's a pretty radical suggestion that would fundamentally scare a lot of corporations, which is a sign that it's probably worth pursuing. And I'm not entirely sure Milton Friedman would agree, but then I'm also not entirely sure he wouldn't!
That does sound interesting, I’d skimmed AT’s book and should have another look.
I know why I’m so stuck on the fence, it’s from my first encounter with ‘purpose’. Twenty years ago looking for a snack in a New York deli I bought a fruit and nut bar brand, KIND. I still remember the surprise reading the packaging story, that it was produced in a joint venture between Palestinians and Israelis who worked together in harmony to make a snack, and as symbol of a bigger cultural idea. In a burst of enthusiasm I cold called the founder and talked my way into a meeting, what a brilliant initiative, surely there is a creative communication story to be told beyond the packaging! In the meeting remember Daniel Lubestsky with a wry smile dampening my enthusiasm saying, ‘well, you know Rupert, people don’t really care about that so much’. I felt deflated. He grew the business into a multi billion dollar ‘healthy snack’ brand. So he’s proved right, the marketing has always been about the ‘natural ingredients’, without provenance.
What I feel the legitimate criticism of purpose misses, beyond the corruption or the daft self serving bolt on’s, is it shuts down and censure’s the potential to create ambitious mythical campaigns rooted in ‘the purpose’.
Or, what happens is a velvet rope is put round these special cases, where ‘purpose’ is embedded in the origin story they are judged ‘authentic’ which gives them permission to make money off it. Who’s got hold of the velvet rope? It begins to start looking like corporate interests avoiding a changing culture. Then we get to something like Hellmans, which I believe is a legitimate strategy, of course they have to be leaders on carbon insetting, footprint, and scope 1/2/3 emissions to have a credible waste reduction story to tell, and the creative might well fall flat, but it appeared to me that much of the loudest criticism was irrational, and concealed a desire to maintain business-as-usual while fobbing it off with a gummy ‘of course we should look after the silent shareholder’ - nature. Being framed there in terms Friedman might approve of.
Much of this was triggered by another Friedman, Tom, in today’s NYT.
“What Palestinians and Israelis need most now are not performative gestures of disinvestment but real gestures of impactful investment, not the threat of a deeper war in Rafah but a way to build more partners for peace. Invest in groups that promote Arab-Jewish understanding, like the Abraham Initiatives or the New Israel Fund. Invest in management skills capacity-building for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza”
And I thought back to that meeting 20 years ago and wonder whether it’s a tiny example of a missed opportunity, that purpose does carry something important and valuable, real world action and awareness that can influence investment, future policy and social outcomes.
Thanks so much for being part of this, Nick!
There’s much I agree with, especially the observation that brand purpose defaults to earnest, preachy, self-righteous and/or cloying sentimental creative work. For me Nick’s broader criticism’s of purpose could be wrapped up in one word, ‘managerialism’, a set of soft power beliefs attitudes & values to use the organization to influence society as opposed to responding to people’s needs & desires, and it also looks to me like a lot of the heat is a corporate management power struggle between progressive and conservative perspectives.
Nick sides with shareholder primacy, echoing Friedman, but without discussing ‘stakeholder governance’ or whether corporations do have broader social aims, beyond being nicer and paying their taxes, which of course they are actually doing even when exploiting all the legal loopholes. Having broader social aims in communities used not to be remotely controversial before the Reagan/Thatcher administrations, which also ushered in the era of asset stripping and off shoring. The ‘purpose clause’ can be traced all the way back to early corporate law, purpose certainly predates Occupy, although modern iterations B-corps and benefit corporations establishment falls either side of the ‘08 financial crisis. There’s a tributary of purpose that sprang from the early ecological movement. Nick is critical of these voluntary organizations because they can be gamed and can lead to noble cause corruption, true, but any system can and will be gamed by a minority, therefore the issue becomes one of oversight and governance but not necessarily a return to the drawing board.
I do think there is a much harder genuine purpose within the system of money, markets and providing goods and services that is being ignored, where entrepreneurs are attempting to figure out, operationalize and popularize businesses that are circular in consumption, regenerative in production, cooperative in ownership, and so on, but this is an uphill struggle in a financial system where MBA types preach ‘alpha returns’ and citizens passively underwrite finance capital.
Hi Rupert – only belatedly saw this comment. Always respect the way you think seriously about this stuff. I can see how it comes across that I'm 'siding with shareholder primacy' and it's certainly true that I'm sceptical of the whole concept of a 'stakeholder' – I'm not sure the word really means anything beyond PR.
I think where I land in the book is a kind of humanist position, where the counterbalance to market excesses/externalities doesn't lie in some perpetually elusive idea of reinventing corporations, but instead lies in reasserting the role of humans in the process. And I think it's interesting that Alison Taylor arrives at a similar position from a different angle in her book 'Higher Ground' – where she advocates 'human rights' as a better lens through which to approach corporate ethics. I think that's a pretty radical suggestion that would fundamentally scare a lot of corporations, which is a sign that it's probably worth pursuing. And I'm not entirely sure Milton Friedman would agree, but then I'm also not entirely sure he wouldn't!
That does sound interesting, I’d skimmed AT’s book and should have another look.
I know why I’m so stuck on the fence, it’s from my first encounter with ‘purpose’. Twenty years ago looking for a snack in a New York deli I bought a fruit and nut bar brand, KIND. I still remember the surprise reading the packaging story, that it was produced in a joint venture between Palestinians and Israelis who worked together in harmony to make a snack, and as symbol of a bigger cultural idea. In a burst of enthusiasm I cold called the founder and talked my way into a meeting, what a brilliant initiative, surely there is a creative communication story to be told beyond the packaging! In the meeting remember Daniel Lubestsky with a wry smile dampening my enthusiasm saying, ‘well, you know Rupert, people don’t really care about that so much’. I felt deflated. He grew the business into a multi billion dollar ‘healthy snack’ brand. So he’s proved right, the marketing has always been about the ‘natural ingredients’, without provenance.
What I feel the legitimate criticism of purpose misses, beyond the corruption or the daft self serving bolt on’s, is it shuts down and censure’s the potential to create ambitious mythical campaigns rooted in ‘the purpose’.
Or, what happens is a velvet rope is put round these special cases, where ‘purpose’ is embedded in the origin story they are judged ‘authentic’ which gives them permission to make money off it. Who’s got hold of the velvet rope? It begins to start looking like corporate interests avoiding a changing culture. Then we get to something like Hellmans, which I believe is a legitimate strategy, of course they have to be leaders on carbon insetting, footprint, and scope 1/2/3 emissions to have a credible waste reduction story to tell, and the creative might well fall flat, but it appeared to me that much of the loudest criticism was irrational, and concealed a desire to maintain business-as-usual while fobbing it off with a gummy ‘of course we should look after the silent shareholder’ - nature. Being framed there in terms Friedman might approve of.
Much of this was triggered by another Friedman, Tom, in today’s NYT.
“What Palestinians and Israelis need most now are not performative gestures of disinvestment but real gestures of impactful investment, not the threat of a deeper war in Rafah but a way to build more partners for peace. Invest in groups that promote Arab-Jewish understanding, like the Abraham Initiatives or the New Israel Fund. Invest in management skills capacity-building for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza”
And I thought back to that meeting 20 years ago and wonder whether it’s a tiny example of a missed opportunity, that purpose does carry something important and valuable, real world action and awareness that can influence investment, future policy and social outcomes.