The risks for social impact of brand activism: corporate involvement in the 2023 Australian Voice referendum

Purpose This paper aims to examine brand activism during Australia’s 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum. Using the corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework, cause-related sponsorship theory (CRST) and cause brand fit theory (CBFT), it explores how organisations seek legitimacy when engaging in brand activism in social issues. Rather than framing these actions as “woke-washing,” the study treats brand activism as a theoretically grounded practice. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted across five Australian organisations: ACF, broken hill propriety Ltd (BHP), CBA, Woolworths and QANTAS. Data were drawn from publicly available sources, including organisational statements, news media, YouTube commentary and LinkedIn posts. Text analysis identified recurring themes, frames and stakeholder responses. CRST and CBFT were used to interpret perceptions of intent, authenticity and legitimacy. Findings Five principles shaped stakeholder responses to brand activism. Alignment influenced acceptance, while misalignment triggered backlash. Authenticity affected perceived intent, with symbolic actions attracting scepticism. Governance and accountability shaped legitimacy through oversight and transparency. Risk awareness and long-term commitment determined whether advocacy-built trust or heightened reputational risk during the referendum. Woolworths provides a useful contrast as it adopted a more cautious and reactive form of brand activism, where initial engagement was followed by visible withdrawal of messaging in response to stakeholder pressure, highlighting a more risk-averse and adaptive strategy. Woolworths provides a useful example of a more cautious and reactive form of brand activism, where initial engagement was followed by visible withdrawal of messaging in response to stakeholder pressure, highlighting a more risk-averse and adaptive strategy. This contrasts with more proactive advocacy approaches, suggesting that some organisations prioritise reputational protection and stakeholder stability over early or highly visible positioning. Research limitations/implications The first limitation is the focus on five organisations within an Australian political and cultural context. As such, the findings may not be generalisable to other industries, countries or activist movements. Furthermore, the analysis primarily reflects the perspectives of corporate actors and public discourse, without direct engagement with the communities most affected by brand activism. Further research is needed to explore the social impact of brand activism across different contexts. The second limitation is the use of qualitative methods. While this enabled a deep and rich analysis, the findings are limited to specific case organisations. Further research is needed to quantify the extent and magnitude of risks associated with brand activism and the empirical effects of these risks on a variety of social impact outcomes, including employee well-being, societal well-being and the organisation’s financial performance. The final limitation is the absence of an Indigenous perspective; future research should include Indigenous voices to ensure culturally informed insights. Practical implications The study positions Indigenous reconciliation as a distinct form of brand activism and offers a five-principle framework to guide responsible advocacy and risk management. Social implications This paper offers an insight into the dangers of seeking positive social impact through advocacy for reconciliation. Originality/value The study positions Indigenous reconciliation as a distinct form of brand activism and offers a five-principle framework to guide responsible advocacy and risk management.