Why brands have to be out and proud about the planet

At a time when net-zero targets are being questioned, there’s strong new evidence to support brands in Asia doubling down on sustainability commitments.

The Trump administration has sent strong shockwaves around the world, impacting not only US multinationals but also brands everywhere. Tariffs are the most obvious clear and present danger to business in Asia. But the US administration’s hostility to other heretofore established corporate norms, like DEI and environmental/net-zero targets is causing brand and corporate communicators around the region to question their purpose commitments and how they talk about them publicly.

In the case of sustainability, at least, new peer-reviewed global research, published in Nature, among almost 130,000 consumers in 125 markets, provides strong evidence to support companies and brands that don’t succumb to temptation to green-hush, and indeed good reasons to double down on being out and proud about the planet. The research findings also suggest intriguing new ways for brands in Asia to make a difference.

First, the headlines. Nearly 90% of people globally want their governments to do more to fight global warming. Several markets in Asia exceed this average, including China and Vietnam (both 97%), Malaysia (96%), and South Korea and Thailand (both 93%). Other major markets – Japan (86%), Australia (83%) and India (80%) lag only slightly behind.

People say they are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. No less than 71% of respondents across Asia say they would be prepared to give up 1% of their household income to fight global warming. That’s higher than the averages for either Europe (65%) or North America (69%).

But fascinatingly, people everywhere—including Asia—consistently underestimate how many others feel the same way. While globally, on average, 69% of people would be prepared to give up 1% of their income, only 43% thought others would do the same. Everywhere, it seems, people underestimate others’ support for action against climate change (full coverage of the detailed findings here).

At least three implications suggest themselves for brands.

First, climate is a mainstream issue in Asia, not a niche. Asian consumers will expect brands to stay the course with their environmental commitments. Those that don’t can expect to be called out, and their reputations will suffer. This research, along with similar large-scale studies, gives brand communicators powerful evidence to push back against more conservative voices in their organisations, and provide a jumping-off point for category and audience-specific research to identify where brand climate commitments can have the most impact (and the least risk).

Second, the research highlights extremely high consumer expectations of governments. This can be seen as a (possibly refreshing) reminder for brands that private sector can’t do it all on its own. So, in addition to their own net zero targets and commitments, there’s large potential reserves of goodwill for brands that can be seen to be aligned with governments’ environmental efforts across the region. Even more so for those who can find ways to facilitate public sector progress, such as through industry-specific thought leadership or expertise, making relevant data available in the public domain, or contributing to transnational development efforts. Whenever brands can engage with policymakers on climate change, it’s a win-win.

Third, climate is social. What behavioral scientists call conditional cooperation means that there is more support to be unlocked when people know they are not alone. Brands can therefore play a valuable role in normalising climate advocacy and can expected to be rewarded, reputationally, for doing so. Any brand with a social following, whenever it promotes its environmental targets, commitments and activities should refer to the 89%, reminding its customers that they are not alone, and their brand stands with them.

Even before the current populist-driven backlash, one could be forgiven for thinking that brand environmental communications was stuck in a rut, increasingly alive to the risk of greenwashing, but in danger of overcorrecting. The fact that today, new questions are being asked about brands’ commitment to sustainability is an opportunity to get back onto the front foot. Consumers in Asia increasingly demand nothing less.

Paul Mottram is an independent communications consultant focused on climate change.