Cause marketing increasingly connects brand choice with social and environmental expectations. Research from the United States and global surveys shows that consumers may reward brands that act on shared values, but they also scrutinize transparency, follow-through, and authenticity. The figures below span 2017 to 2025, so each measurement period and geography matters when applying them to a current marketing strategy.
Contents
- Consumer demand for cause-aligned brands
- Purchase, loyalty, and advocacy outcomes
- Issues consumers expect companies to address
- Authenticity, transparency, and communication
- Sustainability and responsible buying
- Brand purpose, trust, and meaningfulness risks
Consumer demand for cause-aligned brands
Cause marketing starts with a clear consumer expectation: a company can be judged by what it contributes beyond its products or services. In Cone Communications research conducted in the United States in 2017, 86% of Americans expected companies to do more than make a profit by addressing social and environmental issues. Another 70% believed companies had an obligation to improve issues that might not be relevant to their everyday operations. (Cone Communications, 2017)
That expectation was connected to product choice. In the same 2017 U.S. research, 89% said they would switch to a brand associated with a good cause when price and quality were similar, while 79% said they sought socially or environmentally responsible products whenever possible. These are conditional preferences: the cause connection operates alongside comparable price and quality rather than replacing basic product expectations.
Global findings point in a similar direction. Between August and October 2018, 63% of global consumers said they preferred companies that stood for a shared purpose reflecting their personal values and beliefs. In that same Accenture study, 62% wanted companies to take a stand on social, cultural, environmental, or political issues close to their hearts. (Accenture, 2018)
More recent Edelman findings show that shared values remain part of the purchase decision. In a survey conducted across 15 countries from April 13–24, 2024, 84% of respondents said they needed to share values with a brand in order to buy it. (Edelman, 2024) In another 15-country Edelman survey conducted April 24–May 5, 2025, 73% said their trust in a brand would increase if it authentically reflected today’s culture, and 80% said they trusted the brands they used. (Edelman, 2025)
Purchase, loyalty, and advocacy outcomes
Cause marketing can influence more than an initial transaction. Cone’s 2017 U.S. research measured a range of possible consumer responses to corporate values. The strongest purchase-related figure was 87%: Americans said they would purchase a product because the company advocated for an issue they cared about. At the same time, 88% said they would boycott a company for irresponsible business actions, and 76% said they would refuse to buy from a company supporting an issue contrary to their beliefs. (Cone Communications, 2017)
Trust also shaped participation. In the same study, 82% said they would donate to a charity supported by a company they trusted, while 74% said they would volunteer for a cause supported by a trusted company. Advocacy extended to personal recommendations: 81% said they would tell friends and family about a company’s corporate social responsibility efforts.
The reported past behavior was lower than the stated willingness to act. During the 12 months before the 2017 survey, 55% of Americans reported making a donation because of a company’s CSR activity, 52% reported buying a product because the company stood up for an issue they cared about, and 50% reported boycotting a company for irresponsible business actions. The distinction matters: intention figures describe potential responses, while the 12-month figures describe respondents’ reported recent behavior.
| Consumer response measured in the United States | Reported share | Measurement period |
|---|---|---|
| Would purchase because a company advocated for a cared-about issue | 87% | 2017 survey |
| Would boycott irresponsible business actions | 88% | 2017 survey |
| Bought because a company stood up for a cared-about issue | 52% | Previous 12 months, 2017 |
| Boycotted for irresponsible business actions | 50% | Previous 12 months, 2017 |
These figures do not establish that cause marketing alone caused a purchase or boycott. They show how respondents associated company behavior with possible and reported consumer actions.
Issues consumers expect companies to address
The cause itself affects how a campaign is interpreted. In Cone’s 2017 U.S. research, economic development was the top issue Americans wanted companies to address, selected by 34%. Poverty and hunger followed at 19%, the environment at 15%, and human rights at 14%. Education and health and disease were each selected by 9%.
The same research also asked whether issues were active matters for companies to address, rather than asking respondents to choose only one leading issue. Job development was considered an active issue by 94% of Americans, racial equality by 87%, and women’s rights by 84%. Because the questions measure different concepts, the percentages should not be ranked as if they came from one single-choice list.
For marketers, the practical implication is that a cause should be specific enough to connect with a real issue and a credible enough fit for the company’s capabilities. The data identifies issues consumers recognized as important; it does not prove that every brand should address every issue or that a particular cause will perform equally across audiences.
Authenticity, transparency, and communication
Visibility can be necessary for consumers to recognize responsible action. In the 2017 Cone research, 74% of Americans said they did not believe companies were striving to be responsible until they heard about positive efforts. At the same time, 82% said companies making commitments were held accountable to produce results. This combination creates a communication challenge: brands need to explain their work, but public commitments also invite scrutiny.
Consumers did not require perfection. In the same U.S. study, 91% said it was acceptable for a company not to be perfect if it was honest about its efforts. A further 79% said they were more likely to believe CSR commitments communicated across multiple channels. Together, these findings support progress reporting that is candid, consistent, and easy to verify across the places where a brand communicates.
Transparency expectations were also prominent in Accenture’s global study conducted from August to October 2018. Seventy-four percent of global consumers wanted greater transparency in how companies sourced products and ensured safe working conditions. When consumers were disappointed by a brand’s words or actions on a social issue, 48% of U.S. consumers said they complained about it. Twenty percent of consumers in the global study said they would walk away from a brand forever when its purpose did not align with their beliefs. (Accenture, 2018)
IBM’s consumer research provides related measures from a 2019 survey reported in 2020. Seventy-three percent of surveyed consumers said product traceability was important, and 84% said brand trust was important when choosing a product with sustainability in mind. (IBM, 2020) These findings describe surveyed consumers’ priorities; they are not a universal measure of all markets or categories.
Sustainability and responsible buying
IBM’s 2019 survey, reported in 2020, found that 44% of surveyed shoppers were purpose-driven when shopping for food and beverage or grocery products. Across brand-choice attributes, 78% said offering clean products was at least moderately important, 77% said being sustainable or environmentally responsible was at least moderately important, 76% said supporting recycling was at least moderately important, and 72% said using natural or organic ingredients was at least moderately important. (IBM, 2020)
Willingness to change behavior and willingness to pay are separate measures. In the same IBM research, 57% of surveyed consumers were willing to change purchasing habits to reduce environmental impact. Among IBM consumers who considered sustainability important, the share willing to change purchasing habits was 77%. Among consumers who rated sustainability or environmental responsibility very important, 72% were willing to pay a premium for those attributes.
IBM reported another sustainability survey in April 2021. In that March 2021 survey, 54% of surveyed consumers were willing to pay a premium for sustainable or environmentally responsible brands. (IBM, 2021) The 2021 figure should be treated as a separate measurement from the 72% subgroup result in the earlier research, because the survey period and respondent definitions differ.
Brand purpose, trust, and meaningfulness risks
Cause marketing can create differentiation, but weak delivery can make a brand easier to dismiss. Havas’s global Meaningful Brands 2021 study, conducted in mid-2020, found that 75% of brands could disappear and most people would not care or would easily find a replacement. Only 47% of brands were seen as trustworthy, while 71% of people had little faith that brands would deliver on their promises. (Havas, 2021)
The same Havas study found that 34% of consumers thought companies were transparent about their commitments and promises. Meanwhile, 73% said brands must act now for the good of society and the planet, 77% expected brands to show support to people in times of crisis, and 66% wanted more meaningful experiences from brands. These results suggest that purpose claims are evaluated against visible action, clarity, and relevance.
Havas’s 2019 report offers a separate, earlier measure of meaningfulness. It said meaningful brands in its 2019 analysis outperformed the stock market by 134%, and that 77% of brands in the 2019 study could disappear and no one would care. (Havas, 2019) The performance statistic is an association reported by that analysis, not a guarantee that a cause campaign will produce a particular financial result.
For cause marketers, the evidence points to a demanding standard: consumers may prefer shared values and respond to credible advocacy, but they also expect transparency, accountable commitments, and measurable follow-through. A campaign’s relevance therefore depends on the issue, the audience, the time period, and the brand’s ability to support its message with consistent behavior.