Table of Contents
Overview
-
- What you need to know
- Products covered in this Report
Executive Summary
-
- Ecover seen as most ethical brand
-
- Figure 1: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical”, January 2014-July 2016
- Loan brands and tabloid newspapers struggle
-
- Figure 2: Brands with lowest agreement with “ethical”, January 2014-July 2016
- Low perceived ethics does not always equal unethical
-
- Figure 3: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “unethical”, January 2014-July 2016
- No defined link between ethics and awareness
-
- Figure 4: Agreement with “ethical”, by brand awareness, January 2014-July 2016
- Other factors important when making a purchase
-
- Figure 5: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users, January 2014-July 2016
- Consumers reluctant to align with brands without ethical image
-
- Figure 6: Agreement with “ethical”, by brand commitment (net of “I prefer this brand over others” and “This is a favourite brand”), January 2014-July 2016
- Link between ethics and value is blurred
-
- Figure 7: Agreement with “ethical”, by agreement with the statement “A brand that offers good value”, January 2014-July 2016
- What we think
Ethical Brand Overview – What You Need to Know
-
- Ecover considered ethical by highest proportion of consumers
- Loan and newspaper brands among those least likely to be described as ethical
- Low ethics does not always mean unethical
Most Ethical Brands
-
- Ecover considered ethical by the highest proportion of consumers
- BPC brands comprise majority of the highest ranked brands
-
- Figure 8: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical”, January 2014-July 2016
- Just two food and drink brands feature
Brands that Lack Ethical Perceptions
-
- Loan brands and tabloid newspapers struggle
-
- Figure 9: Brands with lowest agreement with “ethical”, January 2014-July 2016
- Low perceived ethics does not always equal unethical
-
- Figure 10: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “unethical”, January 2014-July 2016
Other Ethical Associations
-
- Ecover again performs strongly
-
- Figure 11: Top ranking of brands by agreement with the statement “A brand that is socially responsible”, January 2014-July 2016
- Brands with a focus on care and attention seen as socially responsible
- Ecover and e-cloth noted for environmental image
-
- Figure 12: Top ranking of brands by agreement with the statement “A brand that cares for the environment”, January 2014-July 2016
Sector Overview – What You Need to Know
-
- Automotive sector likely to be relatively unaffected by emissions scandal
- Niche BPC brands able to build strong ethical image
- Tea and coffee brands top ethical drinks
- Individual brands within finance sector able to outscore brand average
- Food brands benefit from fair trade and organic opportunities
- Lush stands out within the retail sector
Automotive
-
- Automotive emissions scandal impacts brand perceptions
-
- Figure 13: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the automotive sector, January 2014-July 2016
- The lower impact of ethics in automotive categories
Beauty and Personal Care
-
- BPC brands among the most ethical
-
- Figure 14: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the BPC sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Several niche BPC brands feature
Drink
-
- Tea and coffee brands dominate in the drinks sector
-
- Figure 15: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the drink sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Figure 16: Kenco Coffee vs Gangs, June 2015
- MNC ownership does not affect image of Innocent or Copella
- Ethics of greater consideration when buying drink
-
- Figure 17: Ethical consideration taken into account, by retail sector, May 2015
-
- Figure 18: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users, among drink brands, January 2014-July 2016
Fashion
-
- UK production gives The Cambridge Satchel Company the edge
-
- Figure 19: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the fashion sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Fashion brands benefit from desirability
Finance
-
- Finance category has a bad reputation
-
- Figure 20: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the finance sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Co-operative Bank maintains ethical image despite difficult period
- Brands benefit from distance with financial services stereotype
- Building societies have advantage over other financial brands
-
- Figure 21: Types of companies perceived to be the most and least socially responsible by consumers, August 2015
- Performance is ultimately what matters to most
Food
-
- Green & Black’s leads the food category
-
- Figure 22: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the food sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Healthiness may be an unconscious factor…
-
- Figure 23: Agreement with “ethical”, by agreement with “healthy”, January 2014-July 2016
- …But healthiness is not always a guarantee of ethical image
- Ethics does not necessarily drive usage
-
- Figure 24: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of usage, within food brands, January 2014-July 2016
Foodservice
-
- Pret A Manger stands out in foodservice sector
-
- Figure 25: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the foodservice sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Byron likely to be affected by recent events
-
- Figure 26: Proportion of total online conversation featuring #BoycottByron, 1 July-18 August 2016
- Consumer cynicism over bigger restaurant chains
- Coffee outlets benefit from image of coffee brands
Household Care
-
- Environmental emphasis boosts ethical image of household care brands
-
- Figure 27: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the household care sector, January 2014-July 2016
Media
-
- Hacking scandal influences ethics in the category
-
- Figure 28: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the print media sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Magazines’ tailored content more likely to be seen as ethical
Retail
-
- Lush stands out in retail
-
- Figure 29: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the retail sector, January 2014-July 2016
- Sign of a link between expense and ethics
-
- Figure 30: Agreement with “ethical”, by agreement with “A brand that offers good value” among retailers, January 2014-July 2016
- Amazon still features despite negative coverage
- Clothing retailers struggle to build ethical profile
- Link between retailer and own-label food ranges
-
- Figure 31: Brand perceptions of retailer own-label food brands, August 2014
Technology Products
-
- High profile brands seen as most ethical in tech
-
- Figure 32: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the technology product sector, January 2014-July 2016
Technology Service Providers
-
- Ethics less of a factor within tech service providers
-
- Figure 33: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the technology service sector, January 2014-July 2016
Travel
-
- Premium airlines considered most ethical among travel brands
-
- Figure 34: Top ranking of brands by agreement with “ethical” in the travel sector, January 2014-July 2016
- The Co-operative Travel lacks ethical appeal of sister retail brand
The Impact of Ethics – What You Need to Know
-
- No defined link between ethics and awareness
- Other factors important when making a purchase
- Priorities likely to change after purchase has been made
- Ethics has limited link with trust
- Consumers reluctant to align with brands without ethical image
- Smaller brands can use ethics to drive a point of difference
The Link between Ethics and Awareness and Usage
-
- Niche brands have more concentrated ethical image
-
- Figure 35: Agreement with “ethical”, by brand awareness, January 2014-July 2016
- Consumers claim to place stock in ethical brands
-
- Figure 36: Ethical factors considered when shopping, May 2015
- But ethics appears less of an influence within individual brands
-
- Figure 37: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users, January 2014-July 2016
- Exclusivity of brands with strong ethical image limits usage
- Brands with low perception of ethics more likely to be affected
-
- Figure 38: Agreement with ethical, by proportion of users who have used in the last year, January 2014-July 2016
The Link between Ethics and Satisfaction
-
- Priorities likely to change after purchase has been made
-
- Figure 39: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users who describe their experience as positive (net of “Good” or “Excellent”), January 2014-July 2016
- Premium brands able to make up for lack of ethics
-
- Figure 40: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users who describe their experience as “Excellent”, January 2014-July 2016
- Consumers less likely to recommend brands without ethical image
- Brands with ethical image still need to prove their purpose
-
- Figure 41: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users who would recommend the brand, January 2014-July 2016
The Link between Ethics and Trust
-
- Ethics has limited link with trust
- General cynicism towards ethics may have an impact
-
- Figure 42: Agreement with “ethical”, by agreement with “A brand that I trust”, January 2014-July 2016
- Perception of being unethical has stronger impact
-
- Figure 43: Agreement with “unethical”, by agreement with “A brand that I trust”, January 2014-July 2016
The Link between Ethics and Brand Preference
-
- Consumers reluctant to align with brands without ethical image
-
- Figure 44: Agreement with “ethical”, by brand commitment (net of “I prefer this brand over others” and “This is a favourite brand”), January 2014-July 2016
The Link between Ethics and Perceived Differentiation
-
- Ethics provide a point of difference
-
- Figure 45: Agreement with “ethical”, by brand differentiation (Net of “It stands out as being somewhat different from other brands” and “It’s a unique brand which really stands out from other brands”), January 2014-July 2016
The Link between Ethics and Perceived Value
-
- Value defined on consumers’ own terms
- Link between ethics and value is blurred
-
- Figure 46: Agreement with “ethical”, by agreement with the statement “A brand that offers good value”, January 2014-July 2016
- Most ethical brands tend to score lower on perceived value
-
- Figure 47: Agreement with “ethical”, by agreement with the statement “A brand that offers good value”, within food, food retailers and foodservice brands, January 2014-July 2016
Cross Category Review – What You Need to Know
-
- Disconnect between idealistic view and real-life view
- Big-name brands appear to escape negative tax-related coverage
- Fair trade has an influence on whole coffee category
- Natural and organic products have stronger ethical associations
- British production can assist with ethical image
Pay and Working Conditions
-
- A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work
- Sports Direct’s pay and working conditions come under scrutiny
-
- Figure 48: Online mentions of Sports Direct, and the proportion of mentions focusing on pay and working conditions, January 2012-July 2016
- Peak of focus reached in December 2015
- An example of disconnect between ideal view and realistic view
- The National Living Wage
- The impact of pay on perceived ethics
-
- Figure 49: Proportion of consumers agreeing that brands accredited by The Living Wage Foundation are ethical, compared with sector average scores, January 2014-July 2016
-
- Figure 50: Proportion of consumers agreeing that members of ETI are ethical, compared with sector average scores, January 2014-July 2016
Tax
-
- Tax-avoiding brands manage to avoid strong unethical associations
-
- Figure 51: Proportion of online brand conversation focused on taxes, selected companies only, January 2007-July 2016
-
- Figure 52: Brand perceptions of brands that have received negative coverage around tax, October 2015-June 2016
- The Fair Tax Mark
-
- Figure 53: Online mentions of different ethical initiatives, January 2014-July 2016
Fair Trade
-
- Fair trade is a clear, visible indicator of responsible production
-
- Figure 54: Online mentions of fair trade, September 2008-July 2016
- Green & Black’s and Clipper benefit from accreditation
- Focus on fair trade coffee prompts other brands to behave ethically
-
- Figure 55: Topic cloud around fair trade, September 2008-July 2016
-
- Figure 56: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users, within coffee and coffee shop brands, May 2014-July 2016
- Pattern between usage and ethics less obvious in chocolate brands
-
- Figure 57: Agreement with “ethical”, by proportion of users, within chocolate brands, February 2014-January 2016
- Fair trade retailers
-
- Figure 58: Perceived ethicality of food retailers, August 2015
-
- Figure 59: Examples of retailer own-label launches with fair trade claims, May 2015-August 2016
- Fair trade in BPC
-
- Figure 60: Perceived ethicality of BPC brands featured on GNPD for product launches containing fair trade ingredients, January 2014-July 2016
-
- Figure 61: Examples of BPC launches with fair trade claims, September 2011-August 2016
Natural and Organic
-
- BPC and food the two main areas where organic is a factor
-
- Figure 62: Topic cloud around organic, September 2008-July 2016
- Majority of organic food brands considered more ethical than average
-
- Figure 63: Brand perceptions of food and drink brands listed on Mintel GNPD as launching products with organic claims since 2011, January 2014-July 2016
-
- Figure 64: Examples of food and drink launches with organic claims, October 2011-August 2016
- Bottled water may face different expectations from consumers
- Some organic BPC brands struggle to create above-average score for ethics
-
- Figure 65: Brand perceptions of BPC brands listed on Mintel GNPD as launching products with organic claims since 2011, August 2014-March 2016
-
- Figure 66: Examples of BPC launches with organic claims, January-June 2016
- Expense is likely to be an issue
- Retailers able to boost perception through products they stock
-
- Figure 67: Brand perceptions of retailers listed on Mintel GNPD as launching products with organic claims since 2011, November 2015-May 2016
Brand Britain
-
- A third consider British influence before buying
- Born in Britain
-
- Figure 68: Agreement with “ethical” among selected brands with UK production focus, compared with sector averages, January 2014-July 2016
- Investing in local communities
-
- Figure 69: Agreement with “ethical” among selected brands with UK focus, compared with sector averages, January 2014-July 2016
- Evidence that British or local pride boosts ethical associations
Appendix – Data Sources, Abbreviations and Supporting Information
-
- Abbreviations
Appendix – Brands Covered
Back to top