Brand image has never been more relevant than it is today. As social media and online markets were popularized, customer perception became key to brands’ success. Brands have, however, often changed their image and actions to match the evolving social and environmental circumstances, calling it “rebranding.” For instance, mass production through exploitation was previously customary but brands now avoid it; the practice has become unacceptable as customers have grown more conscientious and aware of the involved injustices. Nevertheless, issues such as the recent boycott of global brands in China put brands in a tough spot.
Many pondered the question of money versus morality when the boycott in China, one of the biggest markets in the world, began in March. The boycott emerged as accusations regarding forced labor of the Uyghur minorities in China’s Xinjiang region surfaced, causing some brands to stop utilizing Xinjiang cotton. This accusation immediately caused an uproar in China, resulting in the condemnation and boycott of clothing brands such as H&M, Nike, Adidas and Hugo Boss. This movement resulted in major financial backlash to these companies in the Chinese market. The situation ultimately led to a dilemma for companies: stay true to their moral movement and offend China or choose money.
As quality of life improved overall ethical consumption – and consequently ethical production – has become a major theme in today’s economy. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle of capitalism remains, which is why this conundrum arose and will continue to do so in the future. There are two main perspectives regarding such an issue. One is that the moral approach is the right decision as infringing values such as human rights is unjust. On the other hand, the capitalist view claims that a company’s purpose is to maximize its revenue, which will help the economy to thrive. Therefore, in all cases, whichever option generates the most profit will naturally be the right choice.
Regarding this conundrum, the context of today’s society urges brands to continue to pursue the moral road. This choice may eliminate a major revenue source but is ultimately the right one. Decision about the issues discussed in ethical production such as human rights infringement, pollution and global warming impact on a societal level. These decisions will eventually affect everyone, even executives and employees at the very companies that made them.
Take for instance this hypothetical but realistic situation. If influential companies turn a blind eye to such practices, it may incite other brands to follow in their footsteps, resulting in a chain of social problems. The fact that there are multitudes of small and middle tier brands make this issue a substantially bigger problem, since there would be more independent companies following it. Ultimately, the market’s general direction would become more immoral.
As China’s boycott of global brands surfaced on the news, there has been debate regarding what the companies will and should strive towards, money or morality. However, is this issue really something to be debated about? There is one socially correct decision, which is to take on moral practices. To follow the money would be to a result of human greed. With plenty of resources and money, these brands can easily transition to a more ethical production process; therefore, if they choose not to, the reason would be selfishness. Regardless of whether the accusations about China’s Xinjiang cotton are true or not, this event is a call for companies to reconsider their values and follow the moral road as it is the path towards a the greater good.